The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, particularly Section 300, Section 299, and Section 304, in determining the culpability of the appellant for the offence of pushing the deceased into the river.

THOMAS, J.

Mother-in-law of the appellant died due to drowning. Her dead-body was recovered from a stream flowing near her residence. Appellant is alleged to have pushed her into the stream to finish her off. As the trial Court exonerated him for want of evidence, State of Kerala has filed this appeal. Suo motu revisional proceedings have also been initiated by the High Court against the other of acquittal.

2. Story of the prosecution is this : The stream Mangattu Puzha (in Wayanad District) was on spate during monsoon in June, 1986 and water was flowing turbulently. Atmosphere in deceased's house was no less turbulent as the appellant was torturing his wife Ponnamma (P.W. 5) physically and mentally despite her pregnancy in advanced stage. Their's was not a negotiated marriage. Appellant was forced to marry her when she became pregnant through him. After marriage, the couple were staying with the parent of P.W. 5. Appellant used to come home in sozzled condition and flog his wife. On 20-6-86 appellant came by mid-night in his usual form and started showering assaults on Ponnamma. As her father (P.W. 3) could not stand this persecution, he interfered and begged of him to spare his pregnant daughter. Appellant then turned to him and necked him off. P.W. 3 took up a cane and beat him twice in retaliation. But the appellant wrested the cane and unleashed an all round attack on all the inmates of the house. They, in panic started fleeing away to escape from the berserk turned appellant. But appellant chased the deceased and intercepted her and pushed her into the stream and returned to the house in drenched cloths. Next morning, P.W. 3 went to the police station and filed Ext. P3 petition complaining of appellant's misdemeanours in the previous night.

3. Deadbody of the deceased was spotted out the Mangattu Pusha on 24-6-86. Local police took up the deadbody and held the inquest. As the appellant was absconding thereafter, police could nab him only on 10-7-86.

4. As the body was in advanced stage of decomposition, P.W. 8 doctor, who conducted the autopsy, could not give a definite opinion regarding cause of death. However, the doctor ruled out poisoning or bodily injury as the cause of death. (Dislocation of greater cornu of right hyoid bone was noticed, but that was not held to be the cause of death of the deceased). Learned Sessions Judge, therefore, could not arrive at a finding that death of the deceased was due to drowning.

5. Sessions Court has to decide on the cause of death of the deceased in a murder case not merely with the help of medical evidence. A doctor, who conducts autopsy, has only the dead body before him. Sometimes it may be difficult for the doctor to finally pronounce as to how the deceased died. If he expresses such inability, it does not mean that the Court, on that score, becomes helpless. Cases have been reported in which either dead body was not traced out at all, or dead body had been cremated without conducting autopsy or skeleton alone was available for post-mortem examination. Sessions Courts were not helpless in such cases and in many such cases courts were able to conclude regarding cause of death in spite of absence of positive medical evidence. In Anant Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 : (1960 Cri LJ 682) without positive medical evidence as to how the deceased died and even without a report of chemical analyst suggesting any symptom of poison in the system the Supreme Court concluded, from other circumstances, that the deceased in that case had died due to poisoning.

6. There is direct and unimpeachable evidence in this case to show that appellant came to the house in a befuddled state by mid-night and acted like a demented man. His wife, who was in the advanced stage of pregnancy, we woken up by him and was beaten up mercilessly. Evidence that he ran after his mother-in-law, who was fleeing from the house to escape from his wrath is equally unimpeachable. P.Ws. 3 to 5 have tes