- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of North Arcot convicting the appellant. Ganesan. of the murder of his wife and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. It is alleged that he cut her with a bill-hook (M. O. 1) in his house at Thiruvannamalai. about 8. 30 a. m. on 8-1-1972.
(2.) THEY had been married just a few months before. But their marital relationship had not been happy. The appellant had a suspicion, which seems to us to be well founded, that she had been in sexual intimacy with her elder sister's husband. P. W. 6. and. further, she had been refusing conjugal felicity to her husband, the appellant P. W. 1, the eight-year old daughter of an other elder sister of the deceased Kamala. was staving temporarily with the appellant and the de-ceased. On the day in question the appellant asked P. W. 1. to go and Bet onions. The deceased pointed out that she might be involved in some accident and declined to send her. This alone, according to the prosecution, was the motive for the appellant taking the bill-hook nearby and inflicting several cuts on his wife. The murder was witnessed not merely by P. W. 1, but also by P. W. 2. who resides in the house just north. She came out on hearing the screams of Kamala and she saw the appellant inflicting some of the cuts. P. W. 4, a neighbour of the appellant, also saw the appellant coming running with blood on his hands. The appellant had a rope. The appellant ran out crying. "i have committed murder". The rope fell from his hand.
(3.) THE evidence shows that the appellant went straight to the police station at 9-15 a. m. and made a statement. In fact, that is the first information report in the case. It contains the confession that the appellant inflicted cuts on his wife. The learned Sessions Judge has excluded this portion and marked the rest of the statement, as Ex. P6. This, however, is not correct. In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar it has been observed: Now a confession may consist of several parts and may reveal not only the actual commission of the crime, but also the motive, the preparation, the opportunity, the provocation, the weapons used, the intention, the concealment of the weapon and the subsequent conduct of the accused. If the confession is tainted, the taint attaches to each part of it. It is not permissible in law to separate one part and to admit it in evidence as a non-confessional statement. Each part discloses some incriminating fact, i. e. , some fact which by itself or along with other admitted or proved facts suggests the inference that the accused committed the Crime, and though each part taken singly may not amount to a confession, each of them being part of a confessional statement, partakes of the character of a confession. If a statement contains an admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an criminating fact contained in the statement is part of the confession. . . . . . . Little substance and content would be left in Sections 24, 25 and 26. if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted. . . . Some of the decided cases took the view that if a part of the report is properly severable from the strict confessional part, then the severable part could be tendered in evidence. We think that the separability test is misleading, and the entire confessional statement is hit by Section 25, and save and except as provided by Section 27, and save and except the formal part identifying the accused as the maker of the report No. part of it could be tendered in evidence. The above decision has been followed in Khatri Hemraj Amulkah v. State of Gujarat. According to these decisions, the only portion of the statement which could be admitted is the initial portion that he was making the statement, which would not be of any use to the prosecution. But there is no bar to the appellant using the statement in his favour. See also Mottai Thevar in re (1951) 2 Mad LJ 605 at P. 609 : 1951 Mad WN 854, Crl 274 : 1952 Cri LJ 1240. We are referring to this at this stage itself, because Ex. P-6 contains statements favourable to the appellant. It is a long statement, but, for our purpose, it is enough to give a brief summary. Ever since the marriage the wife had been refusing to have conjugal relation-ship with him. On the other hand he had Rood reason to believe that she had been carrying on with P. W. 6. her elder sister's husband. On one night, Kamala and P. W. 6 had gone out for the ostensible purpose of answering calls of nature, but evidently for haying sexual relationship. On the night previous to the day of occurrence also she refused him conjugal felicity. On the morning of the day of occurrence according to Ex. P-6, the appellant gave ten paise to P. W. 1 and asked her to get onions. But his wife, Kamala, said that she should not go out. He pointed out that P. W. 1 was rendering service for all and sundry in the village, but why not for them. In reply to that Kamala abused him. (Tamil Text omitted-Ed. , (you silly fellow, you run away) and hurled a vegetable-cutter on him. He warded it off with his left hand. It fell down. But she threw it on him again with force. Ha warded it off with his right hand. This time it caused an injury on the palmer aspect of his right little finger. It was about 8-30 a. m. He could not control his anger. He therefore took out the koduval and inflicted cuts on her. He came out with a rope with the idea of hanging himself that day. But on nearing Manonmani's house, he thought that it was not proper to do so and threw it aside. There used to be frequent quarrels between him and his wife, and Andalammal (P. W. 2) and Devaraja Pillai (P. W. 7) knew about it. So runs Ex. P-6. Kamala was taken to the hospital where the doctor (P. W. 3) examined her. He found on her 15 injuries. She was unconscious and in a dying state. Hence no statement could be recorded from her. Some treatment was given, but she died at 11-40 a. m. Intimation was given to the police. The section of the first information report was altered to 302. Inquest was held. Therefore autopsy was held. It was found that injury No. 2 was fatal. Death was due to multiple injuries and in particular injury No. 2. It was an incised wound 2 inches x 4 inch x i inch on the left cheek, just above the body of the mandible and it injured the vital structures underneath. On opening the skull, blood clots were seen underneath the brain.;