JAYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in S. C. No. 226 of 2001, who stood charged for an offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC but found guilty and convicted for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 (ii) IPC and awarded a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment in the said sessions case by the judgment dated 22. 03. 2002 of the Additional Sessions judge, Salem Sessions Division, has come forward with this appeal challenging the conviction recorded against her and the sentence imposed on her.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated as follows:-a) The deceased Ramalingam was the own brother of P. W. 1-Subramanian and the husband of Jayalakshmi, the appellant/ accused. Both were residing in Aryapalayam, within the jurisdiction of Yethapur police station. The deceased Ramalingam developed suspicion in the character of his wife, namely the appellant/accused, pursuant to which there were frequent quarrels between them. On several occasions during such altercations, the deceased Ramalingam used to beat his wife, the appellant/accused and on such occasions, the appellant/ accused would leave him and go to her parents place. P. W. 1-Subramanian used to pacify them and make them unite. Lastly, a few months prior to the date of occurrence, namely 14. 02. 2001, similar incident took place pursuant to which the appellant/accused went to her parents place. Thereafter the deceased Ramalingam, promising to mend his ways pleaded with P. W. 1 to persuade the appellant/accused to come and live with him. P. W. 1 also persuaded the appellant/ accused to give the deceased yet another chance to mend his ways and lead a peaceful marital life and consequently four months prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant/accused came and joined with her husband Ramalingam. b) While so, on 14. 02. 2001 at about 2. 00 p. m, the deceased Ramalingam was quarreling with his wife, namely the appellant/ accused, as some of his friends had poisoned his mind over the character of the appellant/accused. P. W. 1 pacified them. P. W. 2-Valli is the wife of P. W. 1. At about 9. 00 p. m- 10. 00 p. m, she heard noises created by the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant/accused coming from their house in Aryapalayam. Thereafter, both P. W. 1 and p. W. 2 went to bed. However, at about 12. 00 midnight they heard a lot of noise coming from the residential portion of deceased ramalingam and both of them went to the said residential portion in which the deceased and his wife appellant/accused were residing. When they forced to open the door, they saw the ghastly scene of the appellant/ accused cutting the deceased Ramalingam on his neck twice with M. O. 1 - axe and thereby causing the death of Ramalingam instantaneously. At the time of occurrence, p. W. 1 and 2 heard the deceased telling the appellant/accused that he would kill her with vegetable cutter (Vernacular matter omitted. . . Ed.) consequent to which the appellant/accused cut the deceased with m. 0. 1 - axe proclaiming that before ever he would do so she would kill him. The appellant/ accused cut the deceased on his neck twice with M. 0. 1 - Axe and thereby caused his instantaneous death. P. W. 1 and 2 witnessed the occurrence with the help of the illumination caused by the electric bulb in the said house. When the appellant/ accused tried to escape from the place of occurrence after throwing the said weapon (axe) on the ground, P. W. 1 and 2 caught hold of her, prevented her from escaping from the said place and made her to sit. As it was the night time, P. W. 1 waited till the morning. c) P. W. 3 - Mathiazhagan, a resident of the said village, upon hearing the news went to the place of occurrence at about 5. 30 a. m, on 15. 02. 2001. He wrote the complaint to the dictation of P. W. 1 and handed over the same to P. W. 1 to be presented in the police station. At about 6. 00 a. m on 15. 02. 2001 leaving the dead body and the accused to be guarded by the villagers, P. W. 1 went to yethapur police station and lodged Ex. P1 complaint. P. W. 9 - Sivasamy was the then inspector of police (in-charge) of Yethapur police station. On the said date at about 7. 00 a. m, he received Ex. P1 - complaint from p. W. 1, prepared Ex. P11 - First Information report in the printed format and registered a case in Crime No. 147 of 2001 of Yethapur police station against the appellant/accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 ipc. The original complaint and the first information report were sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate through P. W. 7 -Veeramuthu (Head constable ). P. W. 9 -Inspector of Police, after registering the case and despatching the complaint and first information report to the court, went to the place of occurrence, prepared Ex. P2 -Observation Mahazar and Ex. P12 - Rough sketch. Through P. W. 5 - Dinakaran (photographer), he caused photographs of the scene of occurrence to be taken. The photographs taken by P. W. 5 are Ex. P4 series and their negatives are M. O. 4 series. The investigating Officer, conducted inquest, prepared Ex. P13 --"inquest Report in the presence of Panchayatdars and sent the dead body for autopsy to Atthur Government hospital along with Ex. P7 - requisition for autopsy. At about 12. 30 p. m, P. W. 9 arrested the accused and recorded her confession statement. During the course of investigation P. W. 9 also recovered the following material objects under Ex. P3 - Seizure Mahazar. M. O. 1 - blood stained axe, M. O. 2 - blood stained earth, M. O. 3 - simple earth series, m. O. 4 - negatives, M. O. 5 - Lungie and M. O. 6- brief. P. W. 4 - Ramasamy (Village administrative Officer) and the village menial arjunan signed in all the mahazars as attesting witnesses. d) P. W. 6 - Dr. Damayanthi conducted autopsy and issued Ex. P6 - Post Mortem examination certificate. The following injuries were noted. i) A horizontal laceration measuring 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the front side of the neck, 4 cm below the adams apple; ii) A horizontal laceration measuring 6 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on the right side of the neck, 6 cm above the right clavicle iii) A horizontal abrasion measuring 3 cm x 5 cm on the anterior aspect of neck; (and)iv) An old cut injury on the left little finger at its base showing signs of healing at the edges of the injury. On internal examination at the point of injury Nos. 1 and 2 neck muscles were found cut, trachea was found lacerated and filled with blood clots. Right carotid arteries and jugular veins were found cut. But Hyoid bone was intact. No fracture of bone was found. On the examination conducted, p. W. 6 opined that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage between 12. 00 and 18. 00 hours prior to autopsy due to the injuries to the great vessels at the neck and the injury to the trachea. e) The material objects recovered during the investigation were sent to the forensic laboratory through court on the requisition of the investigating officer, whereupon the chemical Analysis Report - Ex. P9 and Se-rological Report - Ex. P10 were obtained. P. W. 9 who continued the investigation, recorded the statements of all the witnesses, completed his investigation and submitted a final report on 15. 02. 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Atthur to the effect that the appellant/accused had voluntarily caused the death of her husband ramalingam and thus committed an offence of murder punishable under section 302 ipc. The learned Judicial Magistrate took the same as P. R. C. No. 2/2001, furnished copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution to the appellant/accused and committed the case for trial to the Principal sessions Judge, Salem Sessions who took it on file as Sessions Case No. 226 of 2001 and made over the same to the Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, salem for disposal according to law.

(3.) IN the trial court a charge against the appellant/accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed as the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty the case was tried. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses (P. W. 1 to P. W. 9), marked fourteen documents (Ex. P1 to P14) and produced six material objects (M. O. 1 to 6 ). On completion of evidence on the side of prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. The appellant/accused denied them as false. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents.