Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. Baskaran alias Tamizhkavalan, for having murdered his wife-Suganthapriya, a pregnant lady, was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 316 I.P.C. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The facts, as projected by prosecution, are as follows:- (a) The deceased Suganthapriya got married to the accused Baskaran seven months prior to the date of occurrence. After marriage, the accused and the deceased were living together along with the parents of the accused for some months. Since there was misunderstanding between the deceased and her mother-in-law, on the advice of the parents of the deceased, a separate family was set up in the house which is situated just opposite to the house of the parents of the deceased. (b) P.W.3 Balaamani is the mother of the deceased. P.W.1 Sekar and P.W.2 Suresh are the brothers of the deceased. P.W.1 Sekar, a married man, who is residing with his family separately in the same town, used to visit his parents' house daily. P.W.2 Suresh, a bachelor, is residing along with his parents. The deceased got a job in a button shop. Everyday, she used to go to the shop in the morning and come back in the evening. (c) The accused is a tailor. The accused disliked the deceased going for job. The accused used to spend money lavishly. Everyday, he used to come to house in a drunken mood and beat the deceased. The accused also suspected the fidelity of the deceased. In the meantime, the deceased became pregnant having six months foetus in the womb. The accused thought that only due to her illicit intimacy with somebodyelse, the deceased got conceived. On the basis of this suspicion, there used to be frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused. (d) On one occasion, the accused left her and joined his parents. Therefore, the deceased gave Ex.P-14 complaint to P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police, requesting him to ensure that her husband comes and lives with her. Accordingly, both were summoned and pacified. The accused also gave Ex.P-15 letter, stating that he would live with his wife without any further quarrel. Then they lived together in a separate house opposite to the house of the parents of the deceased. (e) On 7-10-1998 evening, P.W.1 Sekar, who is the brother of the deceased, came to the house of his mother-P.W.3. The accused also gave Ex.P-15 letter, stating that he would live with his wife without any further quarrel. Then they lived together in a separate house opposite to the house of the parents of the deceased. (e) On 7-10-1998 evening, P.W.1 Sekar, who is the brother of the deceased, came to the house of his mother-P.W.3. At that time, he noticed that both the accused and the deceased were quarrelling with each other in their house. Therefore, P.W.3 mother and P.Ws.1 and 2, the brother of the deceased, went to the house of the accused and advised them not to quarrel. Then quarrel was stopped. After one hour, the accused took the deceased in a cycle and left their house. Since the deceased was weeping while she was sitting in the carrier of the cycle and the accused left the house in an angry mood, P.W.3 mother advised both P.Ws.1 and 2 to follow them and to watch as to what is happening. Therefore, P.Ws.1 and 2 followed them in a distance of about 200 feet by watching their movements. (f) On reaching Mani's Nagar, the accused stopped the cycle and put its stand. Thereafter, the accused and the deceased were walking for a considerable distance. P.Ws.1 and 2 also started to follow the couple. At that time, the accused was abusing the deceased, stating that the deceased was going astray and got bad name for him, as a result of which, he was not able to move in the society. While P.Ws.1 and 2 watched the quarrel, it was about 10 p.m. While the quarrel was going on, suddenly the accused removed her saree and put the same around her neck and tightened the same. Then, he caught hold of the tuft of the deceased and took out M.O.1 knife from his pocket and stabbed on the stomach of the deceased indiscriminately. The deceased cried aloud. On seeing this sudden incident, P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the accused in order to catch him. However, the accused ran away with the knife, leaving the cycle there itself. In the meantime, the deceased, with the bleedings injuries, fell down in a ditch. (g) P.Ws.1 and 2 came near the deceased and found that she was dead. On seeing this sudden incident, P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the accused in order to catch him. However, the accused ran away with the knife, leaving the cycle there itself. In the meantime, the deceased, with the bleedings injuries, fell down in a ditch. (g) P.Ws.1 and 2 came near the deceased and found that she was dead. They came and informed the same to P.W.3 mother and thereafter, on the advice of their father, both of them went to Thudiyalur Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W.13 Sub-Inspector of Police. (h) On 8-10-1998, on receipt of the said complaint from P.W.1 at about 1 a.m., P.W.13 Sub-Inspector of Police registered the same for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P-1 is the complaint. Ex.P-16 is the printed F.I.R. (i) P.W.14 Inspector of Police, on receipt of message, went to the scene of occurrence at 2 a.m. and took up investigation. He prepared Ex.P-4 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P-17 rough sketch. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 3.30 a.m. and 4 a.m. The inquest report is Ex.P-18. He recovered M.O.3 blood stained earth, M.O.4 sample earth, M.O.5 a pair of lady's slippers and M.O.2 cycle, which were found near the scene of occurrence. (j) Then the dead body was sent for post-mortem. On 8-10-1998 at 10.15 a.m., P.W.5 Doctor conducted post-mortem and noticed nine injuries on the body of the deceased. He gave an opinion in Ex.P-3 post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries, associated with the compression of neck. (k) P.W.14 Inspector of Police, on 8-10-1998 at about 6.30 p.m., arrested the accused and on his confession, he recovered M.O.1 knife and M.O.6 blood stained shirt from him. P.W.7 attested Ex.P-7 seizure mahazar. Then, the accused was sent for judicial custody. (l) P.W.14 Inspector of Police continued the investigation and examined other witnesses. In the meantime, material objects were sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. However, the charges have been framed by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 302 and 316 I.P.C. 3. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-18 were filed and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked. 4. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-18 were filed and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that on 7-10-1998, when he came back home and asked about the whereabouts of his wife Suganthapriya from his mother-in-law—P.W.3, he was informed that she did not turn up and so, he went to the shop where she was working and enquired there and he was told that the deceased left the shop at 9 p.m. along with some one and that since she was not found either in the house or in the shop, the accused went to police station and gave a complaint. But, the police officers who were present in the station, detained him in the station and then foisted a false case against him. 5. The trial Court, on an appraisal of the evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 316 I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder. This judgment of conviction is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal. 6. Mr.Balaguru, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the evidence available on record, would suffer from various infirmities and the materials projected by prosecution would not clinchingly prove the involvement of the accused in the crime and as such, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 7. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is so artificial and in Ex.P-1 complaint, the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 who have given evidence about the last seen alive of the deceased, was not mentioned and as such, the conviction cannot be based on the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 4, which do not reflect the reliability. He would also read out various portions of the evidence in order to indicate that the arrest and recovery were doubtful and M.O.2 cycle would not have been recovered from the scene of occurrence. 8. He would also read out various portions of the evidence in order to indicate that the arrest and recovery were doubtful and M.O.2 cycle would not have been recovered from the scene of occurrence. 8. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in view of the occurrence which had taken place out of a sudden quarrel, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and at the most, the accused is liable to be convicted only for the offence either under Section 304 (Part-I) or 304 (Part-II) I.P.C. 9. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on these aspects. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties. 10. At the outset, it shall be stated that the contradictions shown by counsel for the appellant in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, in our view, are so trivial, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case. 11. According to the prosecution, there were frequent quarrels between the accused and deceased from the beginning. Since there was quarrel while the deceased was staying along with the parents of the accused, the parents of the deceased advised both the accused and the deceased to come to their area to set up a separate family. Accordingly, four moths prior to the date of occurrence, both the deceased and accused came and stayed in the house just opposite to the house of P.W.3, the mother of the accused. P.W.4 Veerammal is the landlady who rented out both the premises to both the deceased and P.W.3. Though P.W.1 was residing along with his family in some other area, he used to come frequently to his parents' house in order to see his parents. 12. Some months prior to the date of occurrence, the accused left the deceased and joined his parents. Therefore, the deceased gave Ex.P-14 complaint to P.W.12 Inspector of Police in July 1998, requesting him to make arrangements for re-union. Accordingly, the matter was compromised. On an enquiry, it was found out, as per the evidence of P.W.2, that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased from the very beginning. It is also the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the accused always used to quarrel with the deceased on the reason that she got conceived not through him, but through somebodyelse. On an enquiry, it was found out, as per the evidence of P.W.2, that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased from the very beginning. It is also the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the accused always used to quarrel with the deceased on the reason that she got conceived not through him, but through somebodyelse. Even as per the evidence of P.W.4, the landlady, there was constant quarrel everyday evening between the deceased and the accused on some reason or the other. 13. According to P.W.4, she is just residing next to the house of the deceased. She could also hear the conversation between the accused and the deceased in their house and also she could see the incident through the window, inside the house of the deceased. The accused also, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., admitted that he told the Inspector that he suspected the fidelity of the deceased. 14. So, the above facts would make it clear that there is a strong motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. 15. With regard to the occurrence, we have got the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the eye-witnesses. 16. Before dealing with the evidence of the eye-witnesses, it would be better to analyse the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who have spoken about the last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused. According to them, there was a quarrel between the accused and deceased in the evening. P.Ws.1 to 4 went to the house of the deceased and pacified them. There was no quarrel thereafter. The accused, after one hour, left the house in a cycle along with the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 3 did not ask them as to where they were going. However, they found that the accused left the house with angry mood and the deceased who was sitting in a carrier, was weeping. So, P.W.3 mother advised P.Ws.1 and 2 to follow both the accused and the deceased to watch their movements. The purpose of sending P.Ws.1 and 2 to follow them is to see that no harm is caused to the pregnant lady, the deceased, at the hands of the accused. P.W.4, the landlady would specifically state that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 7-10-1998 evening at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased came back home after finishing her job. The purpose of sending P.Ws.1 and 2 to follow them is to see that no harm is caused to the pregnant lady, the deceased, at the hands of the accused. P.W.4, the landlady would specifically state that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 7-10-1998 evening at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased came back home after finishing her job. At that time, the accused was inside the house. The moment she came inside, the quarrel started. The accused abused her as to where she had gone and what was the reason for coming so late. Since the said quarrel continued for sometime creating noise, P.Ws.3 and 4 along with P.Ws.1 and 2, went inside the house and intervened and asked them not to shout at each other. 17. On going through the evidence of P.W.4, both in the chief and cross-examination, it is clear that both the accused and the deceased were found together in their house and were quarreling with each other till 8 p.m. on the date of occurrence, namely 7-10-1998. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the evidence has not been seriously challenged by the defence. On the other hand, it was elicited from P.W.4 that she gave a statement to the police during the course of investigation to the effect that she saw the deceased being taken by the accused at 9 p.m. in a cycle. This aspect of the evidence has been clearly corroborated by P.W.3, the mother of the deceased. When we go through the evidence of P.W.3, it is obvious that there are clear details of the wordy quarrel which took place inside the house. She has given clear evidence that she saw that the deceased was taken by the accused in M.O.2 cycle. Apprehending danger to the deceased, she advised P.Ws.1 and 2 to follow and watch them. If the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is read together, then there is no difficulty in holding that both the accused and deceased were found together at about 8 p.m. in their house and after quarrelling with each other for some time, they left in the cycle. 18. In the light of the above evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, let us now analyse the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the eye-witnesses. 19. It is true that P.W.1 is not permanently residing in the house of P.W.3. 18. In the light of the above evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, let us now analyse the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the eye-witnesses. 19. It is true that P.W.1 is not permanently residing in the house of P.W.3. He is residing in some other area along with his wife. According to him, daily he used to come to the house of P.W.3 to see her. On the date of occurrence also, i.e. on 7-10-1998, P.W.1 came and met his mother P.W.3. At that time, he heard shouting from the house of the deceased. Thereafter, P.Ws.1,2,3 and 4 others, as spoken to by P.Ws.3 and 4, went inside the house of the deceased and pacified them. When the deceased was taken by the accused in a cycle, they were not able to know the place where they were going at the odd hours, namely at 9 p.m. P.W.3 was not inclined to ask the accused as she did not use to talk to him. Fearing that something may happen to her daughter (the deceased), she advised both P.Ws.1 and 2 to follow them. 20. Accordingly, P.Ws.1 and 2 followed in a cycle and when they reached Mani's Nagar, they found that the accused stopped his cycle and put its stand there, and thereafter, both the deceased and the accused went by walk. P.Ws.1 and 2 also followed them. At that time, the accused was abusing the deceased, stating that because of her immoral character, his life had been completely spoiled. When the accused went on shouting at her, he suddenly removed her saree and put the same around her neck and tightened the same. The deceased cried for help. When P.Ws.1 and 2 saw the unexpected attempt of the accused murdering the deceased, both of them rushed near him and tried to prevent him. In the meantime, the accused took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed, inflicting injuries on the stomach of the deceased indiscriminately. When both P.Ws.1 and 2 came near the accused, the accused sped away from the scene of occurrence with the knife in his hands, leaving the cycle there itself. Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 came to P.W.3's house and informed her. Then, on the advice of their father, they came to Thudiyalur Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint at about 1.00 a.m. on 8-10-1998 to P.W.13 Sub-Inspector of Police. 21. Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 came to P.W.3's house and informed her. Then, on the advice of their father, they came to Thudiyalur Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint at about 1.00 a.m. on 8-10-1998 to P.W.13 Sub-Inspector of Police. 21. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the complaint, which was registered at 1.00 a.m., reached the Judicial Magistrate concerned at about 7.30 a.m. on the same day. In Ex.P-1 complaint, both P.Ws.1 and 2 have signed. All the details have been mentioned in Ex.P-1 with regard to the motive, the quarrel between the accused and the deceased in their house and the fatal attack made by the accused on the deceased at the place of occurrence. 22. On receipt of Ex.P-1, P.W.14 Inspector of Police came and visited the place and found that M.O.2 cycle was available. M.O.2 cycle contained the name of Baskaran, the accused. It is not disputed that the cycle belonged to him. Furthermore, near the place of occurrence, street light was burning. This is also mentioned in Ex.P-4 observation mahazar and Ex.P-17 rough sketch. As mentioned in Ex.P-1, the dead body was found in the ditch. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined during the course of inquest. The inquest report also has been received by the Magistrate concerned on the same day, i.e. on 8-10-1998. 23. It is strenuously contended by learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who stated that they followed the deceased and the accused, is so artificial and if they had been there, they would have certainly prevented the accused from attacking the deceased. Though, at the first blush, this argument is attractive, we are unable to accept the same for the reason that P.Ws.1 and 2 would have never thought that the accused would go to the extent of killing his wife. Further, the distance between the place of occurrence and the place at which the witnesses were standing, was about 200 feet. In such circumstances, it might not be possible for P.Ws.1 and 2 to go near to the accused to prevent the attack. Thus, there is no valid reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 24. Furthermore, as indicated above, as stated by P.W.3, P.Ws.1 and 2 followed the deceased and the accused at about 9 p.m. when they left there. Thus, there is no valid reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 24. Furthermore, as indicated above, as stated by P.W.3, P.Ws.1 and 2 followed the deceased and the accused at about 9 p.m. when they left there. The evidence of P.W.3 has been corroborated by P.W.4, the landlady, an independent witness. Thus, it is clear that the accused alone took the deceased from the house to the scene of occurrence where she was done to death. 25. The aspect of motive can be viewed from yet another angle. As noted above, there is clear evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 that both the deceased and the accused were found together at about 8 p.m. on the date of occurrence. It is the case of the accused that he came back at 8.30 p.m. and found his wife not available in the house. According to him, he went to the shop and there he was informed that she had already left and hence, he went to the police station and gave a complaint. For this defence, there is no basis. It was suggested to P.W.1 that the deceased was missing from the morning of 7-10-1998. A suggestion was put to P.W.13 Sub-Inspector of Police that the accused came at about 11 p.m. on 7-10-1998 and gave a complaint about missing of his wife. The stand taken through the suggestion that was put to P.W.13 and the answer given by him in the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., are quite contradictory. 26. It is settled law that when once prosecution has established that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused, it is for the accused to explain as to what had happened to the deceased, since the same would be within the special knowledge of the accused, as contemplated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 27. It was vehemently argued with regard to the alleged suspicious feature in the evidence relating to the recovery of material objects. As per the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 14, the accused was arrested on 8-10-1998 at about 6.30 p.m. and from him, M.O.1 blood stained knife and M.O.6 shirt were recovered. In the chemical examination of M.O.1 and M.O.6, it was found by the Serologist as per his report that they contained human blood. As per the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 14, the accused was arrested on 8-10-1998 at about 6.30 p.m. and from him, M.O.1 blood stained knife and M.O.6 shirt were recovered. In the chemical examination of M.O.1 and M.O.6, it was found by the Serologist as per his report that they contained human blood. Nothing was elicited from P.W.7, the mahazar witness or from P.W.14 Inspector of Police to indicate that they speak falsehood against the accused. Coupled with that, we have got the evidence of P.W.5 Doctor. According to P.W.5, M.O.1 knife would cause the injuries found on the deceased. The medical evidence further shows that the foetus in the womb was six months old and due to the death of the deceased, the foetus also died. 28. Lastly, it was contended by learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the occurrence had taken place out of sudden quarrel, and therefore, the offence would not fall under Section 302 I.P.C. This submission, in our view, would not deserve acceptance. Mere fact that the deceased was taken by the accused from their house to a secluded place where she was stabbed indiscriminately, which resulted in her instantaneous death, would clearly show the intention of the accused to kill the deceased. 29. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 316 I.P.C. are perfectly justified and there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court.