Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 885 (MAD)

Sundar Raj v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

2003-06-25

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, S.ASHOK KUMAR

body2003
Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam, J. For having caused the death of his wife Yesammal, the appellant herein was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.500/-. Challenging the same, this Appeal has been filed. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case leading to the conviction are summarized as follows: "(a) The accused Sundar Raj is the husband of the deceased Yesammal. P.W.1 Jabamani is the father of the deceased. 12 years back, the deceased got married to the accused. Out of their wedlock, two sons were born. The deceased and the accused along with their children were living separately at Thanichiam and P.W.1 Jabamani, the father of the deceased was living with his family in Valiknokkam. (b) On 20-02-1998, the deceased Yesammal and the accused Sundar Raj along with their two children went to Valinokkam to visit P.W.1 Jabamani. They were staying for about two days. On 22-02-1998 at about 9.00 p.m., there was a wordy quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased. On noticing the same, P.W.1 questioned the accused as to why the accused was using abusive words against the deceased. After pacifying both of them, P.W.1 went to Aadkidakai, where he used to take bed. At about 9.00 p.m., both the accused and the deceased took bed in the house. The accused did not sleep and he was restless. The deceased asked the accused to go for sleep. Within a few minutes, the accused took the axe M.O.1 and gave three cuts on the left and right hip as well as on her right elbow. When the deceased cried, the neighbours as well as P.W.1 came to the scene. The accused was found running away from the scene with M.O.1. Then, a van was arranged and the injured was taken to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram for treatment. (c) On 23-02-1998 at 1.25 a.m., the injured victim was admitted by P.W.7 Dr.Santhakumari. P.W.7 gave treatment and issued accident register Ex.P.8. Then, she sent an intimation Ex.P.16 to police and requisition to the Judicial Magistrate II, Ramanathapuram, to record dying declaration. On receipt of the same, on 23-02-1998 , P.W.15, Judicial Magistrate II, Ramanathapuram, came to the hospital and examined the deceased and recorded dying declaration in the presence of P.W.7 Dr.Santhakumari. P.W.7 gave treatment and issued accident register Ex.P.8. Then, she sent an intimation Ex.P.16 to police and requisition to the Judicial Magistrate II, Ramanathapuram, to record dying declaration. On receipt of the same, on 23-02-1998 , P.W.15, Judicial Magistrate II, Ramanathapuram, came to the hospital and examined the deceased and recorded dying declaration in the presence of P.W.7 Dr.Santhakumari. The dying declaration is P.17, which was attested by P.W.7 certifying that the deceased was conscious. (d) On 23-02-1998, P.W. 11 Sub-Inspector of Police on receipt of the information went to the hospital at about 11.30 a.m. and obtained a complaint Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, since the deceased was unable to give statement. Then, he came back to the police station and case was registered for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The printed First Information Report is Ex.P.12. (e) P.W.16 Inspector of Police on receipt of the information took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.25 and drew rough sketch Ex.P.19. He recovered M.O.2 blood stained straw mat, M.O.3 blood stained earth and M.O.4 sample earth under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.2. Thereafter, he went to the Government Hospital and recovered M.O.8 blood stained nylon saree Ex.P.20 worn by the deceased. Then, he examined other witnesses. (f) On 24-02-1998, P.W.16 Inspector of Police arrested the accused at Valinokkam and in pursuance of his confession Ex.P.21, P.W.16 recovered M.O.1 axe under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.22. (g) In the meantime, P.W.9 Dr.Ravi Rajendran conducted operation on the deceased and gave treatment. On 1-3-1998, the deceased died at the hospital despite the best treatment. (h) The death intimation was received by P.W.16 Inspector of Police. Then, the case was altered into one under Section 302 I.P.C. Thereafter, he went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and examined the witnesses. The inquest report is Ex.P.24. (i) As per the requisition, P.W.10 Dr.Rajeswari commenced post-mortem at 2.30 p.m. and found as many as three injuries on the body of the deceased. She issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P.11 and gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of septicemia due to multiple injuries. (j) P.W.16 thereafter arranged to send the material objects for chemical examination through the Court. He examined the other witnesses. She issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P.11 and gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of septicemia due to multiple injuries. (j) P.W.16 thereafter arranged to send the material objects for chemical examination through the Court. He examined the other witnesses. After completion of the investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. (k) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.W.s 1 to 16 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.25 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 8 were marked before the trial Court. (l) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials, he simply denied his complicity in the crime in question. He would further state that nothing was recovered from him and he did not give any confession and when he was in the house, police came and arrested him. (m) On consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.500/-. Hence, this Appeal. 3. Mr.A.D.Jagadish Chandira, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would take us through the entire evidence and would submit that the materials available on record would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Having perceived the difficulty in arguing the case for acquittal, the learned counsel, ultimately confined to the point relating to the nature of the offence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the occurrence had taken place out of a sudden provocation, since the accused had suspected the fidelity of the deceased and further, the death was not the direct result of the injuries caused by him and according to the doctor, death was due to septicemia and as such, the accused could not be convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and he would be liable to the convicted for the offence either under Section 304 (i) or under Section 304 (ii) I.P.C. 4. On these aspects, we have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. On these aspects, we have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the entire records, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the findings of the trial Court in regard to the case of prosecution as well as to the nature of the offence. 6. According to the prosecution, at about 9.00 p.m. on 22-02-1998, when both the accused and deceased were inside the house taking bed, the accused suddenly took M.O.1 axe and gave three cuts on the stomach as well as on the right upper arm of the deceased and ran away. P.W.1 father of the deceased on hearing her cries came and took the deceased to the hospital, where she was admitted by P.W.7 Doctor. P.W.7 Doctor while admitting the deceased was told that the deceased sustained injuries due to the hit with axe by her husband at her residence at about 9.00 p.m. This has been recorded in Ex.P.8, the accident register. Since her condition was serious, P.W.7 Doctor sent a requisition to P.W.15, the Judicial Magistrate II, Ramanathapuram to come over to the hospital and record the dying declaration. 7. Accordingly, P.W.15 came to the hospital and after verification of her consciousness through Doctor P.W.7 recorded her statement Ex.P.17 between 2.25 a.m. and 2.50 a.m. This was certified by P.W.17 that the deceased was conscious throughout and she was in a fit state of mind to give statement. In the dying declaration Ex.P.17, the deceased has clearly stated that the accused husband only gave cut injuries with axe on her stomach on her hip and on the right upper arm. 8. On receipt of the intimation from the hospital, P.W.11 Sub-Inspector of Police went to the hospital next day morning and since the deceased was unable to speak, he obtained a complaint from P.W.1, the father of the deceased and the same was registered for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. On the same day, operation was conducted by P.W.9, the doctor and the evidence of P.W.9 would make it clear that immediately treatment has been given by conducting operation and by administering medicines. Ultimately, the deceased died only on 01-03-1998. Ultimately, the deceased died only on 01-03-1998. P.W.10 doctor conducted autopsy and gave opinion through post mortem certificate that the deceased died of septicemia due to multiple injuries. 9. A reading of the evidence of P.W.7 Doctor, P.W.15, the Judicial Magistrate II, Ex.P.8 accident register, Ex.P.17, the dying declaration and Ex.P.11 post mortem certificate issued by P.W.10 Dr. Rajeswari would clearly show that the deceased sustained injuries only due to the hit given by the husband with axe and she died on 1-3-1998. The time interval between the time of occurrence and the time of death could not be the ground to hold that the offence would not fall under Section 302 I.P.C. As a matter of fact, the evidence of P.Ws. 9 and 7 would make it clear that sufficient care was taken and appropriate treatment was given to the deceased. Despite the same, she died on 1-3-1998. Though it is stated by P.W.10, the Doctor that the death was due to septicemia, it has been clearly mentioned by the said Doctor, that the septicemia formed only due to multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased. It has also been clearly elicited from the Doctor P.W.10 that septicemia was not due to the negligence of the Doctors. Therefore, the materials available on record including the dying declaration and the medical evidence would clearly indicate that the accused had perpetrated the crime of causing injuries to the deceased, which resulted in her death. 10. As indicated above, it was lastly contended that the occurrence had taken place out of a sudden and grave provocation and as such the offence would not fall under Section 302 I.P.C. 11. This submission also, in our view, lacks substance in view of the fact there is no material to show that prior to the time of occurrence, there was any incident so as to give rise to a sudden and grave provocation. It is only mentioned by P.W.1 that there was a wordy quarrel noticed between the deceased and the accused a few hours prior to the time of occurrence. A wordy quarrel will not be a ground to hold that the occurrence has taken place out of a sudden provocation. It is only mentioned by P.W.1 that there was a wordy quarrel noticed between the deceased and the accused a few hours prior to the time of occurrence. A wordy quarrel will not be a ground to hold that the occurrence has taken place out of a sudden provocation. The way in which the injuries have been inflicted on the vital parts of the body of the deceased and the nature of the weapon, namely the axe which has been used by the accused would clearly indicate that the accused attacked the deceased and caused injuries in a most cruel manner and those injuries resulted in the death of the deceased. As such, the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is clearly made out. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the trial Court.