Karuppiah vs The Inspector of Police

P. Shanmugham, J.—The sole accused in S.C.No. 52/1993, on the file of the learned District Sessions Court, Dindigul, Anna District,

Dindigul is the appellant. The appellant is referred as accused for convenience.

The accused was charged for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered Mookkammal, his wife, on

7.9.1992, 7.00 a.m., at Door No. 2/284, Harijan Colony, Moongilpatty village and so he was found guilty and convicted for the said offence and

sentenced to life imprisonment, in the judgment dated 26.4.1994. The above Appeal is against the said judgment.

The brief facts, as per the case of the prosecution, are as follows:--

The accused was not living with his wife, the deceased and they were living separately. However, suspecting the fidelity of the estranged wife, the

accused is said to have stabbed the deceased in the house of her father, P.W.1, at 7.00 a.m. on 7.9.1992 and she died instantaneously. P.W.1,

the father of the deceased gave Ex.P1 complaint which was recorded by P.W.9, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, in Cr.No.

307/1992 and he registered a case u/s 302, I.P.C., against the accused. The Inspector of Police, P.W.12, went to the scene of occurrence,

prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P5 and conducted inquest and sent the body of the deceased for post mortem under Ex.P15. After completion

of the investigation, including recovery of M.O. and examination of witnesses, charge sheet was filed on 14.10.1992 under Sections 341 and 302,

I.P.C., against the accused. The learned District and Sessions Judge after going through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 12, and other evidence

available on record, found the accused guilty u/s 302, I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment to the accused.

We have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and gone through the entire records and

considered the matter carefully.

The eye-witness account of the incident does not support the case of the prosecution. Besides, the injuries found on the accused has not been

properly explained by the prosecution. Further, we find that P.W.1, the father of the deceased who gave Ex.P1 complaint, has given up the case,

when he says that he went out of the house by 6.00 a.m., and returned and found his daughter dead. He says in his cross-examination as follows:--

In the light of the categorical statement of P.W.1, it is difficult to accept the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 had witnessed the occurrence and

set out the various over acts committed by the accused on the deceased. P.W.2, the daughter-in-law of P.W.1, another eye-witness says that the

occurrence took place inside the house of the father of the deceased and when they went and saw inside the house, the deceased was lying

stabbed. She also has stated that the deceased was not stabbed by M.O.1. From the above, it is seen that there is no direct evidence to connect

the accused, with the murder. The complaint, Ex.Pl also did not mention anything about the injury suffered by the accused. On the other hand,

Ex.P2, Accident Register shows that the accused has suffered an injury alleged to have sustained by pulling out a ""Soori Kathi"". The Doctor,

P.W.5, has stated that the injury is of grievous nature. It is highly improbable that the accused would have sustained grievous injury while pulling

out the ""Soori kathi"" kept in the waist. In view of the failure of the prosecution witness in referring to this kind of injury suffered, we do not attach

any importance to the alleged statement made before the Doctor, P.W.5. Further, none of the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant,

explained this injury found on the accused. The specific case of the accused u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code is to the effect that while he was

sleeping, his wife was stabbed and at that time he was also stabbed. The very same suggestion was put to P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their cross-

examination.

In the light of the above, we find that serious doubt has been created as to the manner of occurrence that had taken place as per the case of the

prosecution. The benefit of doubt so created must be given to the accused. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has not established the case

beyond all reasonable doubts and the judgment of the Court below finding the accused guilty u/s 302, I.P.C. and convicting him for life

imprisonment is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment dated 26.4.1994 sentencing the accused to life imprisonment is set aside and this

Appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted of the charge u/s 302, I.P.C. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.