IMPORTANT POINTS
While analyzing Explanation 1 to Sec.8 of the Indian Evidence Act it could be seen that what has been provided therein is including acts other than statements. So when the accused surrenders himself with the blood stained MO1 it would come under explanation of act other than the statement and hence to that extent it is admissible under Sec.8.

JUDGMENT :

M.R.Anitha, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused in S.C.115/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pala.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the deceased, a widow, got acquaintance with the accused while working in a rubber factory at Thikkody grama panchayat. It developed into an intimacy and he used to visit house No.IV/122 of Thikkody panchayat, of the deceased. For having easy going to the house of the deceased, the accused took shed No.IV/159 owned by PW19 in Thikkody panchayat on lease. Thereafter accused wanted to marry the deceased who was not prepared for the same. There used to have quarrel with respect to that in between them. The deceased had been living in her house with her 12 years old daughter, PW2. While so, on 14.11.2013, the accused slept in the house of the deceased and had altercation with the deceased with respect to their marriage and did not left the house in the morning as usual. At about 1.00 pm on 15.11.2013, the accused trespassed into the middle bedroom of the deceased and there was an altercation between them which resulted in a push and pull. He caught hold of the tuft of her hair and dragged her to the northern courtyard and stabbed her with MO1 knife concealed in his loin. There upon the deceased fell near the drain situated on the northern side of her house. He stabbed at her abdomen and chest repeatedly and caused fatal injuries and thereby committed her murder.

3. At about 1.40 hours accused surrendered at Erattupetta police station with MO1 blood stained knife and confessed to have caused the death of the deceased. Based on the same, PW1, the then sub inspector of police, Erattupetta, registered Ext.P1 FIR. Thereafter he arrested the accused at 2.05 pm and prepared Ext.P2 arrest memo and seized MO1 by describing in Ext.P5 seizure mahazar. PW20 Inspector of police, Erattupetta, conducted the investigation and completed the same and filed the charge-sheet against the accused under Secs 449 and 302 IPC.

4. PW1 to 20 were examined, Exts.P1 to P27 were marked and MO1 to 7 were identified and marked from the side of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating facts and circumstances put to him and filed additional statement under Sec.313(5) Cr.P.C contending that he was in love with the deceased from 2011 onwards and converted to Islam. Thereafter from 2012 onwards, he had been residing at her house as husband and wife. On the date of incident, he went for mason work and at about 12.30 pm, on getting information about the death of the wife he went to Erattupetta police station for filing complaint. But he was falsely implicated in this case. There was no defence evidence. On hearing both sides, the court below found the accused/appellant guilty under Sec.449 and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence under Sec.449 IPC, imprisonment for life under Sec.302 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/-under Sec.302 IPC. Half of the fine amount, if realized, is directed to be given to PW2 as compensation. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant came up in appeal for the various grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal.

5. Notice was issued to the respondent and the learned senior public prosecutor appeared on behalf of the respondent/State. Lower Court Records were called for and perused. Both sides were heard. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused later filed argument note. (Appellant would hereinafter be referred as the accused).

6. The learned counsel for the accused assailed the conviction and sentence on various grounds. According to him, though the motive alleged is the refusal of the deceased to marry the accused, it has come out in evidence that the marriage of the deceased and the accused had already taken pla