Judgment SINGARAVELU, J.: The appellant Tamizharasan has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Salem for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, for laving caused the death of his wife on 12.7.1981 at 7.00 p.m. at the Thandavarapuram Power House Quarters at Attur by inflicting number of stabs with a bichuva knife as a result of which she died on the spot. 2. Deceased Kalai Selvi was the third of the five daughters of her parents. Her father was a Line Inspector in the Electricity Board Power House at Thandavarayapuram, Attur. The said girl was married to the accused about six years prior to the occurrence. The accused was a waster and an idler and he was a rolling stone. He never struck on to any job and he was just roaming about without any ostensible means of livelihood. Consequently, the marital life of deceased Kalai Selvi was very unhappy and the accused never attended to her needs or kept her happy. The father-in-law of the accused who was a Line Inspector in the Electricity Board even obtained a casual labourer's work for his son-in-law, but the latter was indifferent and left the job. In these circumstances, the parents brought the girl to their house about ten days prior to the occurrence. The deceased was aged about 21 and the accused was aged about 23 on the date of the occurrence in July, 1981. When the deceased girl was brought to her parents' house for a change, the accused was worrying his parents-in-law to send her back at once and he was making a row with his parents-in-law by coming to their house and demanding the sending away of the girl back to his house. 3. On the eve of the occurrence, on 11.7.1981, P.W.1, the mother of the deceased girl, took her and her last daughter to a morning movie show at Attur and was returning home at 2-00 p.m. While they were waiting at the Attur bus-stand, the accused accosted their and told his wife, catching hold of her hand and dragging her, P.W.1, the mother-in-law told the accused politely, The accused resorted that he would come to their house the next cay and if the wife was not sent to him, she would be stabbed and murdered. 4. 4. On 12.7.1981 which was a Sunday, the accused promptly cams to the house of his parents-in-law in the power house residential quarters. On seeing his mood, the mother, the deceased girl and the last daughter Jeeva who were chatting outside the house in the Verandah, went inside the house and belted the door. The accused went to the window and asked them to open the door as otherwise he would smash the front door. On hearing this shouting and seeing the aggressive mood of her husband, Kalai Selvi opened the backdoor of the house and ran out. The accused chased her and caught hold of her within a few feet and massacred her by inflicting 27 stabs on vital parts all over her body with a bitchuva resulting in her instantaneous death. The victim was shouting for help and though her mother and the neighbours were witnessing the occurrence, they could not go near since the accused flourished the knife and threatened them. 4. After the accused left the place and after the usual lamenations, P.W.1, mother of the deceased, went to the Attur Police Station at 8.30 p.m. and gave the first information report written by one Rajamani. P.W.12, the Sub Inspector registered it as Crime No.411 of 1981 and took up investigation after sending express reports. P.W.13, Inspector, on intimation, came to the scene of occurrence at 10-00 p.m. and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.6 and the plan Ex.P-18. He held inquest over the body of deceased Kalai Selvi from 11-00 p.m. to 1-00 a.m. on 12/13.7.1981 and prepared the inquest report Ex.P-22. After recovering the material objects, he sent the body of deceased Kalai Selvi to the Government Hospital at Attur for postmortem examination. 5. P.W.7, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital at Attur, conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Kalai Selvi on 13.7.1981 at 1-20 p.m. and found on her person the following injuries: “1) A stab wound 1? × ½? × ½? on the right side of the chest in between 3rd and 4th ribs in midcollar bone line penetrating into the intercostal muscle. 2) A penetrating would 1?× ½? × 4? on the anterior axillary line of the right chest in between 5th and 6th ribs and on dis section the wound was found penetrating the intercostal muscle pleura, the middle lobe of the right lung about 1? × ½? 2) A penetrating would 1?× ½? × 4? on the anterior axillary line of the right chest in between 5th and 6th ribs and on dis section the wound was found penetrating the intercostal muscle pleura, the middle lobe of the right lung about 1? × ½? ½ 2? the middle lobe of the lung collapsed. 3) An incised wound 1 ½? × ½? × ½? on the right chest in between 8th and 9th ribs in midcollar bone line. 4) A penetrating wound 1? × ½? × 3? on the mid-axillary line in between 6th and 7th rib of right chest and on dissection, the wound penetrating obliquely cutting the intercostal muscles, pleura and lower lobe of the right lung - about 1? × ½? × 1?- right lung 7th lower lobe collapsed. On opening of the thorax fully, right thoraic cavity contains 400 cc of blood the middle and lower lobe collapsed. 5) An incised wound 4? × ¼? × ¼? on the back of the right chest at the level 7th rib near the midline of the body. 6) A penetrating wound passing downwards 2 ½? × 1? × 3 ½? on the back of right chest in between 9th and 10th ribs and on dis section the surrounding muscle was found out and piercing the disphragm and posterior surface of the right lobe of the liver about 1? × ½? × 2?. 7) An incised wound 1? × ½? × 1? on the back of the right chest in between 8th and 9th rib - ½? above the 6th injury. 8) An incised wound ½? × ¼? × ¼? on the back of the right chest on the level of the 8th and 9th ribs ½? away from the 7th injury. 9) An incised wound ½? × ¼? × ¼? on the back of the right chest 3? away from middle line of the body in between 6th and 7th ribs. 10) An obliquely placed incised would 2? × ½? × ½? in between 4th and 5th rib on the back of the right chest 4? away from the mid line of the body. 11) A horizontally placed incised wound 1? × ½? × 1? on the back of the side of the chest of the junction of the 10th and 11th rib. 12) A stab wound 1? × ¾? × 1 ½? away from the mid line of the body. 11) A horizontally placed incised wound 1? × ½? × 1? on the back of the side of the chest of the junction of the 10th and 11th rib. 12) A stab wound 1? × ¾? × 1 ½? on the outside of the lower 1/3rd of the right upper arm cutting he surrounding muscle. 13) A stab would 1? × ½? × 1 ½? inner side of the middle 1/3rd of the right upper arm cutting the surrounding muscle. 14) A horizontally placed incised wound 3? × 1? × bone deep extending from the thenar eminence of the right hand upto the level of the middle of the back of the wrist joint and first metacarpal bone detached from the corpometacarpal joint. The extensor tender of thumb was found cut. 15) Abrasion on the back of the right forearm ½? below the right elbow joint measuring 1 ½? × ½?. 16) An incised wound 5 ½? × 1½? × 2 ½? on the back of the upper half of the right leg cutting surrounding muscles. 17) An incised wound 3? × 1? × 2? on the back of the lower 1/3rd of the right thigh close to the knee joint, cutting the muscle surrounding the wound and an incised wound continuous from the above wound and extend to 12? × ¼? × ¼? obliquely to the side of the buttock. 18) A vertically placed incised wound 5 ½? × ¼? × ¼? on the back of the lower half of the right thigh. 19) A through and through penetrating wound on the back of the upper 1/3rd of the right thigh 1 ½? × ¼? × 6 ½? passing obliquely upwards - exist seen on the inner aspect of the upper 1/3rd of the right thigh on the anterior surface measuring ¼? × ¼? and on dis section the surrounding muscles was found cut and also femoral vessels. 20) An incised wound 3? × 1? × 2 ½? on the back of the lower half of the inner quadrant of right buttock. 21) A horizontally placed incised wound 3? × 1? × 2? on the right side of the buttocks, very close to the middle line of the body on the sacral regions. 22) A stab wound 1 ¼? × ½? × 2 ½? × 2 ½? on the back of the lower half of the inner quadrant of right buttock. 21) A horizontally placed incised wound 3? × 1? × 2? on the right side of the buttocks, very close to the middle line of the body on the sacral regions. 22) A stab wound 1 ¼? × ½? × 2 ½? rightly obliquely, on the right buttocks 1 ½? below the upper b order of right illiac crust bone cutting the muscles. 23) A horizontally placed incised wound 1 ¼? × ½? × 1? on the back of the upper most b order of the right illiac crust bone, cutting the surrounding muscle. 24) A stab wound horizontally 1 1/2? } 1? × 2? on the right lumbar region 1 ½? away from the middle line of the body, 1? above the 23rd injury. 25) A vertically placed incised wound 6? × ¼? × ¼? on the back of the lower 1/3rd of the left thigh passing downwards upto level of upper 1/3rd of the leg. 26) A horizontally placed noised wound 3? × 1? × 3? on the left side of the buttocks very close to the middle line of the body on the sacral bone region. 27) An obliquely placed incised wound 3 ½? × 1 ¼? × ¼? on the back of the upper half of the left thigh.” According to the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries involving the vital organs, about 17 to 20 hours prior to the postmortem examination. He has further stated that the above mentioned injuries could have been caused by stabbing with a knife like M.O.12. Ex.P.3 is the post-mortem certificate. 6. The accused was arrested on 13.7.1981 and when he was questioned, he gave a confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.8, leading to the recovery of the blood-stained clothes M.Os.9 to 11 and also the knife (M.O.12). The Inspector (P.W.13) found some injuries on his person and, therefore, sent him to the Government Hospital, Attur for treatment. 7. P.W.7, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Attur, examined the accused on 13.7.1981 at 11.35 a.m. and found on him the following injuries: “1. The Inspector (P.W.13) found some injuries on his person and, therefore, sent him to the Government Hospital, Attur for treatment. 7. P.W.7, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Attur, examined the accused on 13.7.1981 at 11.35 a.m. and found on him the following injuries: “1. An incised wound at the level of middle interphalangeal joints of the little finger of the right hand on the back of the finger from side of the finger to the other side of the finger transversely 1 ½? × ½? depth upto the joint of the finger with tendon flexor seen from this side. The extensor tendon is not seen and blood vessels are not seen, joints of the two bones are separated them each other, with dry blood stain seen all over the wound and finger. 2. An incised wound on the back of ring finger of the right hand transversely from one side of the finger to the other side of the finger at the middle interphalangeal joint 1 ½? × ½? × upto the bone and the tension tendon cut off. Dried blood stains are seen on the wound. 3. An incised wound at the middle interphalangeal joint on the dorsum of the middle finger in the right hand from one side to other side of the finger transversely 1?× ½? × ½? with dried blood stained; over the wound and the finger not able to extend by the patient. The extent tendon is not partially seen. 4. An incised wound ¼? × ¼? × ¼? at the anterior aspect of the distal phalanges of the ring finger of right hand. 5. An incised wound on the anterior aspect of the distal phalanges of the middle finger ¼?× ¼? × ¼?right hand. 6. An incised wound ¼? × ¼? × ¼? transversely proximal phalanges of the middle finger in anteri or surface of the left hand. 7. An incised wound 1 ¼? × ¼? × ¼? on the anterior aspect of the proximal phalanges of the right finger of the left hand.” According to the doctor, Injuries No.1 to 3 are grievous in nature and injuries Nos. 4 to 7 are simple in nature. Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate. 8. The material objects were sent for chemical examination and Ex.P.14 and P.15 are respectively the report of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist. 4 to 7 are simple in nature. Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate. 8. The material objects were sent for chemical examination and Ex.P.14 and P.15 are respectively the report of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist. After completing the investigation, the Inspector laid the charge-sheet against the accused. 9. In the trial Court, when questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused stated that he had no quarrel with his wife and that his wife was frequently visiting her parents. He then stated that on the date of occurrence, when he went to the house of his parents-in-law, he saw his co-brother Varadaraj sitting in the same cot with the deceased Kalai Selvi. He then stated that he wanted to take his wife and that he was allowed to take her. According to him, he was taking her along with his co-brother Varadaraj and that Varadaraj suddenly attacked him and when the accused warded it off, he sustained injuries. He then put forward a case that when Varadaraj again attempted to attack him, he put his wife as a shield and in that process the wife had died. He had no witness to be examined on his side. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 10. Four witnesses have given direct evidence regarding the assault on the deceased and they are P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W.1 is the mother-in-law of the accused and she has given a complete picture of the marital life between the accused and the deceased and has also stated that since her daughter Kalai Selvi was very unhappy, her husband drove her to their house about 10 to 12 days prior to the occurrence. She then stated that the accused was worrying her every day to send her daughter back. According to her, the accused even intercepted them at Attur bus stand and tried to drag the deceased away to his house, and that P.W.1 pacified him asking him to go over to their house and take her back happily. She then stated that the accused was worrying her every day to send her daughter back. According to her, the accused even intercepted them at Attur bus stand and tried to drag the deceased away to his house, and that P.W.1 pacified him asking him to go over to their house and take her back happily. The further evidence is that on the day of occurrence at about 6-00 or 6-30 p.m., the accused came to the residential quarters of P.W.1 whose husband is an employee in the Electricity Board, and on seeing the manner in which the accused was approaching their house, the women folk P.W.1, deceased Kalai Selvi and the last daughter Jeeva went inside and bolted themselves. The accused created a big row and banged at the door and threatened the deceased to come out. In order to escape, deceased Kalai Selvi ran out of the house by opening the back door of the house, but then the accused chased her for some distance and brutally inflicted 27 injuries on her person, mostly on the chest and massacred her to death. 11. The evidence of P.W.1, the mother, is most natural and acceptable and also trustworthy. It was she who set the law in motion by laying the F.I.R. Ex.P.1 at the Police Station at 8-3.0 p.m., i.e., within about 1 1/2 hours after the occurrence. There was no avoidable delay in laying the complaint. This F.I.R. is an encyclopaedia containing wealth of details regarding the assault and also the circumstances leading to the assault. 12. Her evidence is further corroborated by the other evidence furnished by P.Ws.2 to 4. P.W.2 is the youngest daughter of P.W.1 and she has fully supported the version of her mother in all material particulars. Similarly, P.W.3 Unni Krishnan is a co-employee and residing in the power House Quarters and he is a Malayali by caste. He too has witnessed the occurrence helplessly. Similarly, P.W.4 Abdul Azizis also residing in the Power House Quarters of the Electricity Board Department and thus a neighbour. He also witnessed the occurrence from the start to thefinish and according to him, when he tried to intervene, he and P.W.3 were threatened by the deceased who flourished the bichuva knife. The names of these witnesses are mentioned in the F.I.R. and their presence cannot at all be doubted. 13. He also witnessed the occurrence from the start to thefinish and according to him, when he tried to intervene, he and P.W.3 were threatened by the deceased who flourished the bichuva knife. The names of these witnesses are mentioned in the F.I.R. and their presence cannot at all be doubted. 13. The medical evidence furnished by P.W.7 further corroborates the evidence of the eye witnesses. The doctor found 27 incised injuries and cuttings on the person of deceased Kalai Selvi and most of them are on the chest of the deceased cutting the ribs and the muscles and all the internal organs. The injuries speak for themselves, and the lungs and liver, etc., have been pierced. According to the doctor, the cumulative effect of all the injuries has resulted in severe haemorrhage and instantaneous death. He also has stated that these injuries could have been caused due to stabbing with the knife M.O.12. 14. The motive for the occurrence is that the parents-in-law of the accused had taken their daughter for a change and kept her in their house for about ten days. The evidence is that the accused could not maintain his wife, and he was not only unemployed but was also idling and wasting his life without doing any work. It was in these circumstances the parents thought it fit to take the daughter to their house for some time. But the accused was insisting on her return and was worrying them almost on every day. He even created a scene in the bus stand on the previous day. On the next day he came to the house of his parents-in-law armed himself with the bichuva knife (M.O.12) and brutally killed his wife when she was not ready to come with him. In this context, the version of the accused itself largely supports the case of the prosecution. His version is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. He admits his presence at the time and place of occurrence. But, in one breath, he would say that he saw his co-brother sitting in the same cot with the deceased. In the same breath, he would say that her parents permitted him to take her away and that he took her out along with his co-brother. Finally, he stated that his co-brother attacked him and in that process his wife (deceased Kalai Selvi) was injured. In the same breath, he would say that her parents permitted him to take her away and that he took her out along with his co-brother. Finally, he stated that his co-brother attacked him and in that process his wife (deceased Kalai Selvi) was injured. The version of the accused is absured, inconsistent and desperate. The knife M.O.12 was recovered from the accused on he information furnished by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Chemical Examination revealed that it contained human blood of ‘A’ Group and it also allied with the blood group detected from the other material object and this also proves the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in convicting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. With reference to the punishment for the offence, the learned Sessions Judge has chosen to sentence the accused to imprisonment for life, though he has clearly found that this murder has been committed by the husband brutally, deliberately and most cruelly. The learned trial Judge, having found that the murder of his wife is heinous and cold blooded, is not consistent in awarding the lesser punishment of imprisonment for life. In this connection, we are constrained to make some observations with reference to the awarding of punishment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Of late, it is noticed that there is some discernible tendency on the part of the trial Judges to prefer to impose the lesser penalty prescribed for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code even in grave cases presumably on a wrong interpretation and misconception of the Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Baghan Singh v. State of Punjab Baghan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) Crl.L.J. 636: (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684 : (1980) S.C.C. (Crl.) 580: A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898. Of course, the Supreme Court has held that the extreme penalty of death may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases; but, that does not mean that death sentence should not be imposed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code under any circumstance. Many of trial Judge prefer to err on the safer side by imposing a lesser punishment of imprisonment for life even in extreme Cases. Many of trial Judge prefer to err on the safer side by imposing a lesser punishment of imprisonment for life even in extreme Cases. In this connection it will be useful to remember the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) Crl.L.J. 1457: (1983) 3 S.C.C. 470 : (1983) S.C.C. (Crl.) 681: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 957 wherein the guidelines for imposing death sentence have been clearly laid down. Their Lordships have observed that the extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in grave cases of extreme culpability, and that ‘life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception’. But, the Supreme Court has at the same time held that if there are aggravating circumstances which outweigh the mitigating circumstances, there is no other alternative but to impose the death sentence. In fact, the decision reported in Munawar Harun Shah v. State of Maharashtra Munawar Harun Shah v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 S.C.J. 71: (1983) MLJ. (Crl.) 594: (1983) Crl.L.J. 971: (1983) 3 S.C.C. 354 : (1983) S.C.C. (Crl.) 625: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 585 says that due regard must be had to the magnitude, gruesome nature of the offence and the manner in which it was perpetrated. Their Lordships would observe thus; “Any leniency shown in the matter of sentence would not only be misplaced but will certainly give rise to and foster a feeling of private revenge among the people leading to destabilisation of the society.” 16. Even in the Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) Crl.L.J. 636: (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684 : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898, it was held that the provision of death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not unreasonable and it is in public interest. 17. Applying these guidelines to the facts and circumstances of our case, it is clear to us as found by the trial Court that the murder of the wife aged 21 by the husband ostensibly for no rhyme or reason is most cruel and brutal as is revealed by the 27 stabs all over her body with a bichuva resulting in her instantaneous death. There was absolutely no provocation for the husband to commit this dastardly act and his only grievance was that his wife had overstayed in her father's house for about ten days. Therefore, there are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused in this case and the extreme penalty of death would have been a condign punishment for this crimo on a young defenceless woman. However, the State itself has not taken steps to file an appeal for enhancement of punishment, and therefore, we leave it there making this observation that adequate punishment commensurate with the crime must be normally awarded on the facts of each case and this is the age-long and time-honoured practice which the Courts have followed down the ages. With these observations, the conviction and the sentence are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. V.K. ----- Appeal dismissed.