IMPORTANT POINTS:
Death of the victim was not the result of the injuries sustained. Once intention is proved, whether the death took place instantaneously or with some delay assumes not much relevance. The offender is liable for culpable homicide of the first degree.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in S.C. No. 47 of 2011 from C.P. No.18 0f 2010 arising out of Crime No. 249 of 2010 of Erattupetta Police Station by which he was found guilty for committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with a default stipulation of simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Prosecution case is that the appellant and his wife Sheeba @ Rajani along with their three children were residing in house no. VI/28 of Theekkoy Panchayath. On 13/03/2010 at 09.00 P.M., the appellant came to his house in a drunken state and due to his suspicion about the chastity of his wife Sheeba, forcibly pressed her face with both hands causing nail marks, fisted on her face and then using a firewood hit her all over the body especially on the shoulder and thigh and caused her head to be hit on a concrete piece in the kitchen. Due to the injuries so sustained, she was found dead the next day morning. The appellant was charged with offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri.P.P.Padmalayan submitted that the appellant herein is innocent. Prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Motive is not proved by the prosecution. Absolutely no evidence is forthcoming to show that there was any intention on the part of the appellant. PW2 is the son of the deceased who was only 9 years of age at the time of incident and his evidence cannot be believed. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. There was no premeditation. It can also be seen that the appellant and the victim slept in the same room after the alleged attack. Counsel for the appellant pleaded for an acquittal extending benefit of doubt.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State Sri. K.B. Udayakumar argued that there is sufficient evidence to prove the involvement of the appellant and the Court below is justified in convicting the appellant. The appellant and the victim were husband and wife. Three children were born in the wedlock and PW2 is the elder son. He categorically deposed that his mother was brutally assaulted by his father on the date of incident. His evidence is fully corroborated by medical and other scientific evidence. The appellant who is supposed to protect his wife turned to be her murderer. Altogether 28 injuries were noted on her body. It can be seen that after severe assault, she was not even taken to hospital by the appellant. It shows that he had no intention at all to save his wife. He argued for upholding the conviction passed by the trial Court.

5. Prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 as witnesses, marked documents Exts.P1 to P16 and identified material objects MO1 to MO19. Exts.D1 and D1(a) were marked by the defence. During 313 examination, he denied all incriminating circumstances and pleaded innocence. In his written submission under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), he stated that on 13/03/2010, after job, he returned to his house and his three children were sleeping at that time. He heard an unusual sound from kitchen. When he entered the kitchen, his wife and one Shaji were found inside the kitchen. There was a scuffle between himself and Shaji and the victim tried to intervene and she fell down and sustained the injuries. No evidence was adduced from the side of the defence.

6. As already stated, Court below, based on the evidence available on record, has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant herein caused the injuries on the victim with intent to commit murder and punished him. Serious challenges were posed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the said findings of the trial Court based on