SULALMAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The sole appellant was tried under S. 302 and 506 (2 Indian Penal Code for the offence of committing the murder of his wife and for intimidation. The trial court acquitted him of the charge under Section 506 (2 Indian Penal Code and convicted him under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The accused as well as the State preferred appeals. The High court while dismissing the appeal filed by the accused, allowed the State appeal and altered the conviction to one under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal.
(2.)The appellant was an Arabic teacher. His wife, the deceased, was also an arabic teacher. They were living together with their three children in pullampara Village. The appellant had suspicion about the chastity of his wife and suspected that she was having illicit connection with Public Witness 3, his neighbour. There were frequent quarrels. On 3/4/1982, the accused went along with his wife to the latter's school for drawing her salary and after drawing the salary they returned home. At about 2.15 p. m. , according to the prosecution, the accused caused the death of the deceased by cutting her with a chopper thereby inflicting a number of injuries as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. The appellant then came out of the house with a chopper and started shouting abusive words against Public Witness 3. He ran towards the house of PW 3 to kill him. PW 3, however, escaped. A report was given to the police. Investigations commenced and an inquest was held over the dead body and the post-mortem was conducted and the medical evidence showed that the deceased had a number of injuries on her body and some of them were fatal by themselves. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The plea of the accused has been one of denial. However, a plea of insanity was set up and he examined Public Witness 2, a psychiatrist and also marked Exs. C-2 and C-3 in support ofhis plea of insanity. This evidence on his behalf was led to show that he was being treated for "paranoid state" which was diagnosed as "paranoid schizophrenia".
(3.)The prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of Public Witness 6, the son of the deceased as well as the accused, aged about 7 years and on the evidence of pws 2 and 3. The trial court rejected the plea of insanity but convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code, holding that he must have committed the crime under a grave and sudden provocation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.