P. Somarajan JUDGMENT
P. Somarajan, J.
1. Appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed under Section 302 IPC against the accused/appellant in Sessions Case No. 794/2013 of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palakkad.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused intentionally hacked his wife, Chandrika, with a chopper on the foot of a coconut palm situated in the property of one Scaria in Jellippara-Kandiyur Panchayat and the victim succumbed to the injuries by 9.00 a.m on the same day by 19.05.1998.
3. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the oral testimony of PW 1 to PW 3, eye witnesses to the alleged incident, and the oral testimony of PW 4 and PW 7 besides the recovery of chopper used for the commission of offence, identified as MO3, to prove the complicity of the accused.
4. It is a case wherein the prosecution has examined three eye witnesses to the occurrence who are in agreement with what actually happened and transpired in between the accused and the victim on the ill-fated day. The accused is the husband and the victim is his wife Chandrika. They are also in agreement with respect to the place and the time in which the alleged incident was happened and the nature of weapon used and the manner in which injuries were inflicted. According to PW 1, while he was sitting in the tea shop belonged to one Thulasidharan on 19.05.1998 by 9.00 a.m, the accused came there with a chopper and kept the chopper on the desk and asked for a tea. By that time he had seen Chandrika, the victim herein, who was sitting inside the shop room, on seeing the accused, she left the place and sneaked out through the back door. Thereon the accused followed her with the chopper and inflicted injuries on her neck 5 to 6 times by holding on her tuft. After inflicting cut injuries on the victim, the accused proceeded to the road in front of the shop and squatted on the road and abandoned his chopper there. PW 2 gives sufficient support to what actually spoken by PW 1 and what happened on the ill-fated day. PW 3 also gave corroboration to the ocular testimony of PW 1 and PW 2. The presence of those three witnesses, PW 1 to PW 3, are probable and no suggestion was put up showing any hatredness, enmity or ill-will and nothing was brought out in their cross-examination. All of them identified MO3 chopper. All of them also are in agreement that they heard the commotion from the road, men and women were crying by yelling that the accused is killing the victim. Nothing was brought out to discredit their evidence and no contradiction or material omission was also brought out.
5. Their evidence further stood as corroborated by the oral testimony of PW 7, who is the witness to Exhibit P4 seizure mahazar. PW 13 is another witness to Exhibit P4 mahazar. Both of them are in agreement that MO3 chopper was recovered from the road.
6. The main challenge raised by the appellant regarding recovery of MO3 weapon, the chopper used for the commission of offence, is that the alleged recovery cannot be brought under the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in view of the oral testimony made by PW 1 regarding the place wherein the accused kept the chopper after the commission of the offence. The place wherein the chopper was kept by the accused after the commission of the offence was spoken by PW 1 stating that it was kept in the road side and abandoned there by the accused. A material object or an incriminating factor which could be brought under Section 27 of the Evidence Act should be the one not within the knowledge of investigation. If the place wherein the alleged material object was concealed is known to the prosecution witnesses and not within the exclusive knowledge of the accused/accused persons, the detection and recovery of the same in furtherance of the disclosure statement alleged to have been made by the accused while in police custody cannot be brought under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the instant case, the place wherein MO3 chopper was kept by the accused is known to PW 1 and some other persons who came and assembled there. So, it cannot be brought under the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But, the fact as spoken by PW 1 that the accused was found with the chopper (MO3) which was found to be stained by human blood of 'A' group on chemical analysis, would give sufficient corroboration to the oral testimony given by the three ocular witnesses, PW 1 to PW 3.
7. The material objects which were sent for chemical examination also support the oral testimony of PW 1 to PW 3 and give sufficient corroboration. The chopper (MO3) and shirt and double mundu (dhothi) were found to be stained with 'A' group of human blood besides the dress worn by the victim, brassiere (MO8), jacket (MO9), lunki (MO2), underskirt (MO11) and thorthu (MO12). No explanation was forwarded by the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with respect to the presence of human blood of 'A' group in his shirt, double mundu and MO3 chopper. As discussed earlier, the presence of human blood of 'A' group, which is the blood group of the victim, evidenced from the material object recovered from her body -brassiere, jacket, lunki, underskirt and thorthu, would give sufficient support to the oral version given by PW 1 to PW 3.
8. The medical evidence adduced also supports and gives corroboration to the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 as the injuries sustained by the victim are possible by MO3 chopper and the cause of death is stated to be due to the injuries sustained by the victim. PW 1 to PW 3 are in agreement with respect to the number of injuries inflicted on the body of the victim by the accused, which, according to them, comes 5 to 7, which also fully tally with the ante-mortem injuries noted by the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body.
9. According to the appellant, the prosecution has failed to establish the actual motive behind the crime. It is settled that when there is an eye witness to the occurrence corroborated by other evidence, the non establishment of motive behind the crime is not fatal to the prosecution. Motive intrinsically connected with the guilty consciousness - mens rea and it may not be possible for the prosecution to trace out the real motive behind the crime invariably in all cases. Sometimes it may be known to the accused alone. When there is an eye witness to the alleged occurrence supported by other evidence and when it is found to be convincing and inspires confidence, non establishment of the motive is not fatal. Frequent quarrel and strained relationship between the accused and the victim were deposed by their son, PW 4, and nothing was brought out to discredit his evidence. It was the usual practice of the accused to pick up quarrel with his wife and to unleash attack on her after consuming alcohol. Hence, when there is a strained relationship or frequent quarrel between the husband and wife, it would satisfy the motive for the commission of offence.
10. The medical evidence adduced regarding the number of injuries, user of a sharp edged weapon like MO3 and the place wherein the injuries were inflicted on the body of victim would sufficiently bring the matter within the sweep of first and second limbs of Section 300 IPC, an intentional homicide with full knowledge. Hence, there is no satisfactory reason for any interference to the finding of guilt of accused under Section 302 IPC and the conviction thereunder.
The sentence awarded, being the lesser one, does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, appeal lacks in merits, deserves only dismissal and we do so.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.