M. Chockalingam, J.@mdashChallenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, made in S.C. No. 103/2002 whereby the sole accused/Appellant stood charged u/s 302 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of 2 Rs. 1000/- and default sentence.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is the mother and P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased Mallika. The deceased was given in marriage to the Appellant/accused. He used to come in a drunken mood and quarrel with her often. When they were living happily for short a while, she became conceived. Thereafter, she came to the house of P.W.1 and was staying over there. On the date of occurrence that was on 11.7.2005, in the noon hours, he came to the house of P.W.1 and called Mallika to his matrimonial home. She replied that she is having a baby in her hand, and it is also too young, and under the circumstances, she could not come. Immediately, raising a quarrel, he took a stone and dashed on her mouth. On hearing the sound, P. Ws.1 and 2 and one Mani got inside. At that time, he took a knife and stabbed her on different parts of the body and also kicked her on the stomach. Then he left the place of occurrence. Immediately, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, where she was medically examined and given treatment by P.W.5, the Doctor. The copy of the accident register is marked as Ex.P6. Thereafter, she was taken to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and was given treatment by P.W.6, the Doctor. The accident register copy is marked as Ex.P7. Thereafter, an intimation was given to the Respondent police station.
(b) P.W.4, the Head Constable, attached to the Respondent police station, proceeded to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and recorded the statement of the victim which is marked as Ex.P4. Thereupon, he came back to the police station and handed over the same to P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, who on the strength of Ex.P4, the complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 164/2005 under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P11, was despatched to the Court.
(c) P.W.10 proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P1, and he also prepared a rough sketch marked as Ex.P12. He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, on 17.7.2005, the accused was arrested. He was sent for judicial remand.
(d) Despite treatment, Mallika died on 20.7.2005. An intimation was given by P.W.7, the Doctor. On receipt of the same, the case was altered to Section 302 of IPC, and the altered report, Ex.P13, was despatched to the Court.
(e) One Vikramsingh, Inspector of Police, Guruharapalli Police Station who was in charge of the Respondent police station, took up investigation and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and conducted inquest on the dead body of Mallika in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P14. Then he gave a requisition to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem.
(f) P.W.9, the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mallika and has given her opinion under Ex.P10, the postmortem certificate, that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of blunt injury of abdomen.
(g) Further, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, took up the further investigation and on completion of the same, filed the final report.
3. The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also relied on 14 exhibits and 3 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found him guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the Appellant.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the Appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; that it is true that the prosecution has examined three witnesses as eyewitnesses; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on the noon hours of 11.7.2005; but according to the Head Constable examined as P.W.4, he proceeded to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and recorded the statement of the victim only on the night hours of 13.7.2005, and thus there were two intervening days; and that it was not only the question of lethargic attitude on the part of the police, but also the case was actually a false one.
5. Pointing to the evidence of P. Ws.1 to 3, who, according to the prosecution, are eyewitnesses, the learned Counsel would submit that according to them, at first, the Appellant/accused attacked her with a stone on her mouth, and thereafter, he took a knife and stabbed her on different parts of the body, and then he kicked her.
6. The learned Counsel pointing to the medical evidence and in particular, Exs.P6 and P7, the accident register copies, which have come into existence on 11.7.2005 and 12.7.2005 respectively, would submit that even the victim when she was taken to the hospital, has categorically stated to the Doctors that she was assaulted by her husband only that night, and she has not even stated about the stone or knife; that these are all subsequent introductions and also improved versions when she gave a statement to the Head Constable on 13.7.2005; that though P. Ws.1 to 3 have stated in the line of the statement made by the deceased in Ex.P4, their evidence cannot but be false; that under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; that it is true that even the Doctor, P.W.9, who conducted postmortem, has categorically given an opinion that blunt injury caused in the abdomen was the reason for the death; that even the postmortem certificate does not indicate anywhere any injury which could have been caused either by a stone or by a knife; that under the circumstances, the medical evidence also was not in favour of the prosecution; that all the material objects were not actually subjected to chemical analysis, and thus the prosecution has miserably failed since there was not only inordinate delay, which remained unexplained, but also P. Ws.1 to 3''s evidence was thoroughly false, and the medical opinion canvassed, did not support the prosecution case; that under the circumstances, the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view, and hence the case of the prosecution should have been rejected and he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.
7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
8. It is not in controversy that following an incident that had taken place in the noon hours of 11.7.2005, one Mallika, the wife of the accused, was originally taken to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, and after getting treatment in the hands of P.W.5, the Doctor, she was taken to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, where she was given treatment by P.W.6, the Doctor, and despite treatment, she died on 20.7.2005. P.W.9, the Doctor, had conducted autopsy and has given her opinion in the postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P10, that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of blunt injury of abdomen. Thus the cause of death is proved that it was due to the blunt injury caused to the abdomen. That apart, the cause of death as put forth by the prosecution, was never disputed by the Appellant before the trial Court or before this Court, and hence no impediment is felt in recording so.
9. In order to substantiate that it was the accused/Appellant who caused her death, the prosecution examined three witnesses. Admittedly, the occurrence has taken place on 11.7.2005 during the noon hours. After the occurrence was over, immediately she was taken to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, and she was treated by P.W.5, the Doctor. The accident register copy is Ex.P6. Thereafter, she was taken to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and she was given treatment on 13.7.2005, by P.W.6, the Doctor, and the accident register copy is marked as Ex.P7. A perusal of these two documents would clearly indicate that the statements were made by the deceased herself to both the Doctors wherein she has categorically stated that her husband attacked her with hand. Nowhere she has whispered that she was attacked either with a stick or with a knife. As could be seen from the available materials, and in particular, Ex.P2, an intimation was given by the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, to the Respondent police station. But, the police official has not actually gone to the hospital for getting the report. On the contrary, P.W.4, the Head Constable, went to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, on13.7.2005 night, and recorded the statement of the deceased which is marked as Ex.P4. Thus the delay was actually inordinate and remained unexplained. It is well settled principle of law that on the mere delay of giving information to the police or the registration of the case, the prosecution case cannot be rejected. In the case on hand, there were three eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and all the three have spoken that he has not only kicked her, but also attacked her with the stone and also stabbed her with the knife. But, from the versions given by the deceased to both the Doctors, it would be quite clear that P. Ws.1 to 3 have given exaggerated versions, and the fact remained that she was attacked by her husband at the time of occurrence with hand and also kicked by him. This fact actually stood proved by the medical opinion canvassed through the postmortem Doctor. He has given a categorical opinion before the Court as a witness and also through the contents of the postmortem certificate that she died out of the blunt injuries to her abdomen.
10. Apart from the above, the prosecution has not even placed all the case sheets pertaining to the treatment given to her from 11.7.2005 till the time of death on 20.7.2005. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it cannot be termed as murder, but only injuries that have been caused punishable u/s 325 of IPC. However it has caused the death. In such circumstances, finding him guilty u/s 325 of IPC and awarding a punishment of three years Rigorous Imprisonment, in the considered opinion of the Court, would suffice to meet the ends of justice.
11. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the Appellant/accused u/s 302 of IPC are set aside, and instead, he is convicted u/s 325 of IPC and is directed to suffer three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of which he is directed to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentence already undergone by him, shall be given set off.
12. In the result, with the above modification in conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal is disposed of.
