ORDER
R. Regupathi, J.
1. The sole and the single accused/appellant was convicted by the Court of Sessions, Tuticorin, Chidambranar District, in S.C. No. 131/92 for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.I is the husband of the deceased. He and accused belonged to the same village, namely Vilathikulam. Both the accused and P.W.I are having punja lands on adjacent side. The accused was entertaining a doubt to the effect that his wife is in illegal intimacy with P.W.I. On account of that the accused quarreled with P.W.I on several occasions. P.W.I has informed to his wife/ deceased in this regard and she also stated to P.W.I that he need not bother about that. She further stated that the accused instead of controlling his wife unnecessarily quarreling with P.W.I. On account of this, there was frequent quarrel between the deceased and the accused. P.W.I requested the deceased not to quarrel any more in this regard.
3. Under this background, the deceased, on the day of occurrence, i.e 21.11.1989, went to their punja land for the purpose of removing weeds. On the same day, at 8.00 a.m, P.W.I after visiting other punja lands returned back to the punja land where the deceased was working. At the time, when he reached the land, he heard a noise of quarrel from that land. When he rushed to the place, he saw the accused and the deceased quarreling. The accused was armed with aruval. While so, the deceased started running towards the neighboring punja land, which is belonged to P.W.5. The accused chased her and caught hold of the tuft of the deceased on his left hand and assaulted with aruval on her mouth, head and neck. P.W.I, at that time, shouted at the accused by saying not to cut her. BY the time the deceased fell down. Even thereafter, the accused lifted the petty coat and the saree of the deceased and delivered cut at the private part of the deceased. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. While running away he has also threatened P.W.I not to come near him, otherwise he will be assaulted. Therefore, P.W.I could not apprehend the accused. Thereafter, P.W.I went near the deceased and found her dead. P.W.5, who is the neighboring land owner, has also witnessed the occurrence. P.W.I ran from the field towards the village, which is 2 km away and while reaching the village, P.W.2 questioned him as to why he is running by making noise. P.W.I informed P.W.2 about the occurrence and thereafter he fell down unconsciously. P.W.2 helped him to regain conscious by sprinkling soda water on his face. P.W.I and P.W.2, thereafter, went to the Villathikulam police station at about 4.00 p.m. P.W.I has narrated the incident to the Head Constable.
4. P.W.10, who is the Head Constable attached with Villathikullam Police Station, on receipt of the report under Ex.P-1, signed by P.W.I and attested by P.W.2 through his thumb impression, registered a case in Cr. No. 341/89 for an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. Ex.P-14 is the FIR. P.W.10 dispatched the FIR under express tapal through P.W.7 at 5.15 p.m to the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam and he has further intimated the same over phone to the Inspector of Police and thereafter he delivered a copy of the FIR to the Inspector of Police at 4.30 p.m. P.W.7, the Police Constable received the copy of the FIR and went to the Judicial Magistrate-II, Kovilpatti and handedover the same at 8.00 p.m, instead of delivering the FIR at the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam as he was on leave.
5. P.W.11, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the FIR at 4.30 p.m. reached the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazer Ex.P-9 in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer-P.W.9. Village Administrative officer and Thalaiyari attested the Observation Mahazer. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-15 regarding the occurrence place. Thereafter, he has conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 5.30 to 8.30 p.m. Ex.P-6 is the inquest report. He has also recovered blood-stained earth M.O.9, sample- earth M.O.10 under Ex.P-10 at 8.40 p.m and the same was attested by P.W.9 and Thalaiyari, Thereafter, with the help of Petromax light, he has also recovered M.Os.2, 3,11 and 16 from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P-11- mahazar. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer despatched the dead body through P.W.8-Police Constable with a requisition letter-Ex.P-2 for conducting post-mortem to the Government Hospital. In the mean time, he has examined P.Ws.l, 2, 5, 6 and 9 and others. He has also examined P.W.7, 8, 10 on 8.12.1989.
6. P.W.8, Police Constable, has taken the dead body of the deceased, alongwith requisition letter, to the Medical officer at Governement Hospital, Vilathikulam, on 22.11.1989 at 2.00 a.m. After the conclusion of the Post mortem, P.W.8 recovered blood-stained vayil saree of the deceased M.O.4, Petty coat M.O.5, blood-stained jacket M.O.6, one pair of gold nose stud M.O.7 and M.O.8 thali and produced the same to the Inspector of Police.
7. P.W.3, the Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital, Vilathikulam, on receipt of requisition letter-Ex.P-2, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at 2.00 p.m and noticed nine injuries all over the body of the deceased. Ex.P-3 is the Post-mortem report. In the Post mortem report, he has listed on the injuries as follows:
(1) A cut injury measuring 14″ x 5″ x 4″ in the reach of neck, below and between left and right ears (below and front of the right ear) leaving a small bit of muscle and skin in the front of neck cutting the skin bone and spinal cord, larynx oesophagus and blood-vessels from the back of neck.
(2)A cut injury measuring 3″ x 2″ upto brain in the occiput 1″ above the left ear (left occipital bone cut).
(3) cut injury measuring 6″ x 2″ x 3″ on the left check from the left angle of mouth to the left side middle of the neck cutting ramus of the left mandible, skin, muscles and blood-vessels.
(4)A slanting cut injury measuring 4″ x 1″ x upto bone depth on the left nose from the left-eye medial side to right eye brow upper part.
(5)A cut injury measuring 4″ x 1″ x 2″ on the right upper side pelvis.
(6)A cut injury measuring 6″ x 2″ x 3″ on the upper and left side of pelvis to the thigh at a distance of 1-1/2″ in between injury No.5 and 6. A cut in the middle left side pelvis bone.
(7)An abrasion measuring 1″ x 1/4″ x skin depth 2″ below the left elbow joint.
(8)A cut injury measuring 2″ x 1/2″ x 1/4″ on the upper and side of the left shoulder.
(9)A cut injury measuring 2″ x 1″ x 2″ cutting skin muscle, bone (radius) and 1″ above the left wrist.
The Medical Officer has given his opinion to the effect that Injury No. 1 is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has further opined that injuries No. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 could be caused with a weapon like M.O.1 aruval.
8.The Inspector of Police examined the Medical Officer-P.W.3 on 23.11.1989 and received his statement. He came to know that on 1.12.1989 the accused has surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Sengottaih and he has taken custody of the accused on 12.12.1989. The accused at 5.45 p.m, has given a statement in the presence of the P.W.9 and Thalaiyari, which is marked as Ex.P-12. In that statement, the accused has stated that if he was taken, he will produced the aruval from where he has concealed it. Accordingly, the accused accompanied by the Investigating Officer, P.W.9 and Thalaiyari on 12.12.1989 at 9.00 a.m, went to the place where he concealed the aruval and produced M.O.I and the same was recovered under Ex.P-13, which was attested by P.W.9 and Thalaiyari. Thereafter, the accused was remanded for judicial custody. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of P.W.9 and Thalaiyari and others. He has given request-Ex.P-4 to the Judicial Magistrate for sending the material objects for chemical examination. P.W.4, the Head Clark attached with Judicial Magistrtrat-I, Thirunelveli, on receipt of Ex.P-4, despatched the material objects with Court’s letter Ex.P-5 and subsequently received Ex.Ps.6 and 7, namely, reports from the Chemical Analysts and Serologist.
9.P.W.2 is one of the villager, who has seen P.W.I running towards the village, speaks about the occurrence. P.W.2 helped P.W.I to regain conscious, when he fell down unconsciously, and accompanied him to go to the police station to lodge a report with the police. P.W.2 has further stated regarding the illicit intimacy of the wife of the accused with P.W.I. P.W.5 is another eye witness, who is the neighboring land owner of the P.W.I, witnessed the occurrence from his land which is nearby. P.W.5 has stated that both the deceased and the accused were quarreling and thereafter, when the deceased escaped towards his land, the accused chased her and delivered cuts on her. P. W.6 is also a resident of the same village, who has stated that he has witnessed the accused coming from the scene of occurrence with aruval. At that time, when he questioned the accused regarding the blood stained aruval and dress of the accused, the accused replied that he has finished the deceased as he decided. P.W.6 also stated about the illicit intimacy of P.W.I with the wife of the accused and quarrel between the deceased and the accused on account of that.
10. The Investigating Officer, on completing the investigation, filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and the learned Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of the materials, committed the case to Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. After the formation of the District and Sessions Court at Chidambaranar District, the case was transferred and the trial was undertaken in S.C. No. 131/1992. The learned Trial Judge has perused all the materials on record, namely evidence of P.W.I to 11 and Ex.P-1 to 16 and given an opportunity to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, for which the accused pleaded innocence and stated that a false case has been foisted against him. Neither oral nor documentary evidence has been marked on the side of the accused. The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of the materials available on record and after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above.
11. Mr. Andiraj, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, who has been appointed through Legal Aid, contended that it is a case where the acquittal can be granted, in view of the reason that the evidence of P. W. 1 is not believable as he has reached the scene of occurrence after the entire occurrence is over, for which he relied on the evidence of P.W.5 to the effect that P.W.I came to know about the occurrence only on the information given by P.W.5. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.I, who has stated that he has witnessed the occurrence should be disbelieved. It has been further contended that P.W.5 also could not have seen the occurrence as he did not narrate all the overt acts. Further, it is contended that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 8.00 a.m. and the report came into existence only at 4.00 p.m. And as such there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR with the police. The learned counsel for the accused in the alternative, submitted that admittedly there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. Further, both the P.W.I and P.W.5 have admitted that the deceased is alleged to have used bad language against the accused. It is contended that the case of the prosecution itself is that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused prior to the time of occurrence. Further more, there was long standing animosity between the accused and P.W.I, as he was entertaining a doubt to the effect that P.W.I is having illicit intimacy with his wife and in view of the above background of the case, the accused was provoked and the provocation was persisting in his mind for a long time and even at the time of occurrence there was a quarrel on account of the same subject matter. It is further submitted that the accused has assaulted the deceased though not on grave and sudden provocation but on sustained provocation, in which event, the accused is entitled for modification of the conviction and sentence.
12. Per contra, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that this is a case of day light murder and the murder of the deceased was witnessed by P.W.I, who is non other than her husband as well as independent witnesses, who were present naturally at the scene of occurrence. There is a strong motive since there was a quarrel between the deceased and accused on the same subject continuously for a period of three years. P.W.I has witnessed the occurrence from a distance, while he was coming to the garden land and the intention of the accused to commit such a gruesome murder is explicit on seeing the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased. Post-mortem Doctor narrated that there are nine incised injuries and the first injury is so severe and the head of the deceased was hanging from the body. The accused even after the deceased fell down, lifted the petty coat and saree and caused injuries on her private part. This action of causing injury is spoken to by P.W.I. P.W.3, Post-mortem Doctor, has also corroborated to the effect that the injury No.6 started from the bone portion of the private part of the deceased measuring 6″ x 2″ x 3″, causing injury to the Pubic bone also. The learned Additional Public prosecutor further submitted that the motive part of the case of the prosecution is spoken to by P.W.2 & 6 and other official witnesses also have corroborated the prosecution case.
13. On consideration of the rival contentions, we have carefully perused the materials on record and assessed the arguments putfourth by either side. In so far as actual occurrence is concerned, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of P.W.I and P.W.5. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.I came to the scene of occurrence on hearing the noise of the deceased. At the time when he has reached the scene, he could see the actual quarrel between the deceased and the accused
and the chase of the accused as well as assault on the deceased. Further more, P.W.I clearly narrated that how the deceased sustained the injury at the private part of the deceased. Moreover, at the time when P.W.I attempted to go near the deceased, the accused threatened P.W.I also with aruval and thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.5, who is a neighboring land owner, witnessed the occurrence and narrated the occurrence in such a way that would corroborate with the evidence of P.W.I. P.W.I, after ascertaining that his wife is dead, rushed to the village and since he was exhausted, fell down by becoming unconscious, after informing the same to P.W.2. It is P.W.2, who brought him back to conscious by sprinkling soda water on his face. Thereafter, both P.W. 1 and P.W.2 reached the police station, which is 15 kms away and lodged a report to the police. The evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 2 cannot be doubted, in view of the reason that P.W.2 and P.W.5 are belonging to the same village and they are independent witnesses. The FIR, which came into existence at 4.00 p.m on the same day, given a detailed picture about the actual occurrence and there is no contradiction between the FIR and the evidence of P.W. 1. Further more, the accused has been entertaining a grave animosity towards P.W.I and the deceased, as he was quarrelling on the issue that P.W.I is having illicit intimacy with his wife. The prosecution witnesses have stated that this issue was a continuous one for over a period of three years and there was frequent quarrel between the deceased and the accused. The motive is so strong enough that the accused was entertaining a grudge to commit the murder on the deceased as well as P.W.I. The nature of the injuries convey the intention on the part of the accused and the way in which the injuries were caused conveys the mind of the accused especially while looking at the injury caused at the private part of the deceased. To meet the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that the conduct of the accused in causing multiple injuries all over the body of the deceased as well as when the deceased had fell down, the accused lifted the petty coat and saree of the deceased and caused another cut injury at the private part of the deceased, will convey the grave nature of the act.
14. The attack of the accused and the nature of the injury will fully satisfy the ingredients of Section 300,I.P.C. and he is liable to be convicted under Section 302,I.P.C. Therefore, the culpable homicide committed by the accused on the deceased will amount to murder.
15. Culpable homicide may not amount to murder only if the act committed falls within any one of the exceptions given in Section 300,I.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the act of the accused will come within the Exception-1 to Section 300, I.P.C. Which is extracted below:
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
But the first proviso to Exception-1 to Section 300,I.P.C. reads as follows:
That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an exuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
16. If the Section, Exception and First Proviso are read together, the act committed by the accused will amount to culpable homicide, amounting to murder. The case of the prosecution is that it is only P.W.I was having illicit intimacy with the wife of the accused, for which the deceased cannot be blamed. Even though the quarrel and bad language of the deceased are taken into account, that itself cannot lead to the inference that the accused was provoked on the bad language of the deceased. It is, on the contrary, the accused was entertaining an intention, which appears to be very cruel, which is explicit from the way in which he delivered multiple cuts on the deceased. The cruel intention is apparent on seeing the injury caused at the private part of the deceased. The accused was entertaining vengeance in his mind to commit the death of the deceased, who is the wife of P.W.I, as P.W.I was having illicit intimacy with his own wife. Thereby, the act of the accused is in a way of retaliation and the murder was committed by way of revenge. The grudge and bad intention entertained by the accused all these days cannot be equated with the sustained provocation, for which the act of the accused must be for a right cause. At any rate, we are unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused. Looking at all these aspects, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the accused is an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The evidence of independent witnesses is amply corroborated by the medical evidence as well as by other official witnesses. Therefore, we are of the view that the findings given by the Court below is well founded and sustainable.
17. For the foregoing reasons, we confirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused, thereby, the appeal is dismissed.