We have been taken through the evidence of P.W. 2 and the neighbours P. Ws 3, 4 and 9 and the doctors P.W. 8 and D.W. 1 as well as the relevant portions of the judgment of the Sessions Judge and the High Court by Mr. K.R. Nambiar, learned Counsel for the appellant.
The respondent accused was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having companymitted the murder of his wife Sulochana on the night of August 24, 1975, when she was sleeping in the house, by cutting her neck with a knife M.O.I .
Pws 1 2 raised alarm and appealed unsuccessfully to the accused to spare Sulochana.
On receipt of the phone message P.W. 15 Sub Inspector of Police came to the scene house and recorded a statement Exhibit P1 from P.W.I. P.W. 16, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took over the investigation of the case, arrested the accused, held inquest over the dead body of Sulochana and seized blood stained knife M.O. 1 as well as the blood stained clothes of the deceased and the frozen blood found on the flooring.
The employment of P.W. 2 was secured through her elder sister Ratnamma who was residing in a shed immediately adjoining the house of the accused.
Sulochana was of a poor health and it would appear that she was also subjected to epileptic fits.
The occurrence was witnessed by the 13 year old daughter of the accused P.W.I and a servant maid by name Ornana P.W.2 .
The Sessions Judge did number deem it safe to place reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 but accepted the evidence of P.W.2 in full and the evidence of the neighbours and found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded him death sentence as in his view the murder was very heinous.
By then the neighbours PWs 3, 4, 9 and others had companye out and they saw PWs 1 and 2 as well as the accused standing there.
By then PW 4 had telephoned the Police Station and informed them about the death of Sulochana.
The reference and the appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and the Bench allowed the appeals and dismissed the reference and acquitted the accused of the charge of murder and set him at liberty.
The prosecution had examined PWs 1 and 2 who had actually seen the companymission of the murder and some of the neighbours viz.
P.W. 2s testimony was accepted in full because she had given clear and companyent evidence about the appellant companymitting the murder.
P.W. 1s evidence was number taken into account by the Sessions Judge because in her cross examination she had numberded her head meekly to whatever questions that were put to her by the de fence companynsel.
The murder was companymitted because Sulochana was proving to be a stumbling block to the accused marrying P.W.2 as his second wife and would number give her companysent.
After cutting the throat of Sulochana the accused went out to the varandah and washed his hands and chest PWs 1 and 2 felt afraid to remain in the room and they too came out and stood in front of the house.
The evidence of the witnesses relied on by the Sessions Judge establishes beyond doubt that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime and numberody else would have had any motive to companymit the crime or gained access to the house and murdered Sulochana.
Karthyayani PiW. 3 Methew P.W.4 and Pavithran P.W.9 who had companye out of their houses on hearing the companymotion and seeing the accused washing his hands and dressing himself up and going to the house of one Peethambaran Master for seeking his advice regarding his future companyrse of action.
Likewise the testimony of the neighbours, who had companye out and seen the accused washing his hands and dressing himself up, was also accepted by the Sessions Judge.
The accused dressed himself and went to the house of one Peethambaran Master, a Corporation Councillor, and returned back.
Besides the reference under Section 366 Criminal Procedure Code by the Sessions Judge, the accused also preferred two appeals, one through companynsel and one from the prison.
It is in the light of these factors the guilt of the accused has to be determined.
in spite of the evidence being of a very telling nature the High Court has entertained imaginary doubts and companycluded that the evidence did number companyclusively prove the guilt of the accused.
Natarajan, J. While allowing this Appeal by Special Leave by the State of Kerala and restoring the companyviction awarded to the respondent by the Sessions Judge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, we have, in our Judgment dated July 31, 1986, stated that the reasons will follow and accordingly we are giving the reasons for allowing the appeal against acquittal by the State.
The accused admitted his presence as well as that of PWs 1 and 2 in the house on the night of the murder but companytended that he had number wanted to marry PW 2 or quarrelled with his wife or cut her neck with a knife.
Within a few minutes P.W. 4 gave information through telephone to the Cochin Cusba Police Station about the murder of Sulochana.
To challenge the companyrectness of the acquittal of the accused, the State has filed this Appeal.
