Judgment :-

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.1083/2007 dated 05.11.2009. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, has confirmed the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in S.C.No.99 of 1997 dated 29.04.1999, by which the appellant-accused was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. 3. The deceased (Gangammal) was the wife of appellant-accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was an alcoholic, and habitually beating his wife after picking up a quarrel with her for silly reasons. He also didn't reside under the same roof with her, and only occasionally visited her. Gangammal was eking her livelihood by working as a domestic servant. At the time of the incident, Gangammal and the accused had a son and a daughter.

4. It appears that on the previous night of the incident, the accused severely beat Gangammal as he doubted her fidelity. On 13.08.1997, around 6.45 a.m., the accused attacked her neck with a kitchen knife, causing her to bleed profusely, which ultimately led to her death.

5. It has come in the evidence of P.W.2 (the neighbour) that she barged into the Gangammal's house on hearing her shriek in pain, and found Gangammal in a severely injured condition. In her evidence, she has also stated that Gangammal told her that the accused had caused the knife injury on her neck. Thereafter, P.W.2 has deposed that she asked Gangammal to change her blood soaked saree and arranged for a rickshaw puller to shift Gangammal from the house to the Government Hospital at Yanam.

6. In the hospital, P.W.1 (the doctor) treated the deceased. In the Examination-in-Chief, he has elaborated the nature of the injuries that Gangammal had suffered and the treatment that was given to her. He has further stated that, for better treatment, he had advised P.W.2 to take her to the Government Hospital, Kakinada. He has further stated that Gangammal had told him that the accused had first tried to throttle her neck and later on stabbed her on the neck with a knife.

7. We have the evidence of P.W.3 (son of the accused and deceased) and P.W.4 (daughter of the accused and deceased), who, at that time, were 16 years and 14 years respectively. Both of them, in one voice, have stated that there used to be quarrel between their mother and father and their father used to beat their mother. They have also stated that after they came back to the house, they were informed that the accused had caused the knife injury on the neck of their mother.

8. P.W.5 (the rickshaw puller who transported the deceased to Government Hospital, Yanam) has testified that the deceased had stated to him that the accused had stabbed her on the neck. P.W.12 (the doctor who treated the deceased at Government Hospital, Kakinada) has explained the treatment she gave to the deceased in her evidence, and has confirmed that the death of the deceased was caused by the stab injury inflicted on her neck. In the evidence of P.W.13 (the medical examiner who conducted the post mortem) and the post mortem report, the nature of the injury on the body of the deceased and the seriousness of the same has come on record.

9. The Trial Court, after appreciating and analysing the entire evidence on record, has came to the conclusion that the knife injury caused by the accused on the neck of the deceased was sufficient to cause her death. Accordingly, it has convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 302 of the IPC, awarding rigorous imprisonment for life. The same is confirmed by the High Court, which decision is impugned before us.

10. We have heard Shri. Shekhar Prit Jha, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant and Shri. V. Kanagaraj, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.