SHIVA @ PRAMASIVAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been directed against the Judgment, dated 12.06.2015, passed in S.C. No. 217 of 2011, by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.R.), Thanjavur, convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer a further period of one year imprisonment.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant/accused and the deceased Elavarasi were living together without getting married for 1 1/2 years at various places. Prior to six months from the date of the incident, they were residing in a hut at Melasalai, Kuthalam, belonging to one Bharathimohan for rent. The appellant/accused had earlier been married twice and had subsequently been in a live in relationship with the deceased and that there were quarrels between him and the deceased. One month prior to the incident, the appellant/accused had quarrels with the deceased and thereby, he had attempted to do away with her by mixing poison in the food. On coming to know of the said fact, the de facto complainant, namely, Palanivelu, who is the father of the deceased, took the deceased back to his house and taken care of her and since then, the deceased was residing with her parents. On 07.04.2011, at about 09.30 a.m., the appellant/accused went to the house of the de facto complainant and asked him to send the deceased with him, but the de facto complainant had refused to send his daughter saying that if he sends his daughter/deceased with the appellant/accused, then the appellant/accused would kill his daughter. The appellant/accused, who got enraged by the said words, pushed the de facto complainant by the neck resulting in his falling down and when the deceased tried to lift the de facto complainant, the appellant/accused with an intention to kill her, took the knife, which he had concealed in his waist and stabbed on her left neck, which resulted in cutting of the blood vessels and due to the hemorrhage and shock, the deceased died on the spot and thereby, the appellant/accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

(3.) Subsequently, on the same day, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint with regard to the said incident before the respondent-Police and the respondent-Police, based on the said complaint, had registered a case in Crime No. 91 of 2011 on the same day and immediately after the registration of the case, the respondent-Police went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch and recovered one blood stained pillow under a seizure mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, namely, Subbaiyan and Elangovan (P.W.4). At about 12'o clock, the appellant/accused was arrested by the Investigation Officer in the presence of the witnesses, namely, Rajendran and Palanimurugan, and based on the confession statement given by the appellant/accused, the Investigation Officer took him to the place where he had concealed the knife used in the offence and shirt and lungi worn by him at the time of occurrence and recovered the same under Ex.P9-Seizure Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, namely, Rajendran and Palanimurugan (P.W.11). Thereafter, at about 15.00 hours, inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased at P.W.1's house and thereafter, the Investigation Officer had prepared Ex.P13 Inquest Report. Subsequently, the body was sent to the Government Hospital for postmortem to find out the real cause of the death and the recovered articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to find out whether the blood appeared in those articles are of human origin and whether the blood found in the recovered articles and the blood of the deceased is one and the same. After completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer had laid a final report before learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, who had taken cognizance of the final report filed and inasmuch as the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate furnished the copy of the documents relied on the prosecution side to the appellant/accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., 1973 and committed the case to the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, who took the same on file in S.C. No. 217 of 2011 and made over the same to the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (P.C.R.), Thanjavur, for trial. Subsequently, the Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 I.P.C., against the appellant/accused and when he was explained and questioned about the charges framed against him, he had denied the charges and sought for trial to prove his case and accordingly, trial was conducted.