Point of Law: It is trite that custody of an accused for initial period of fifteen days can either be judicial custody or police custody and during this period, competent Magistrate is empowered to convert judicial custody to police custody and vice versa.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 496 of 2011 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thodupuzha. He stands convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The wife of the accused Radha was found dead in their house on 28.02.2009. The accused has three children in his wedlock with the deceased. The first person to arrive at the house of the deceased on coming to know of the death is the mother of the deceased, Koluthai. On receiving information from Koluthai, the brother of the deceased, Rajan informed the death to the police on the following day and a crime was accordingly registered at about 9 a.m. on that day. Rajan had no clues as to the cause of death at the time of furnishing the information to the police. Consequently, the case was registered only under Section 174 of the Code. Later, the case was converted as one under Sections 306, 498A and 201 IPC. The investigation conducted thereupon revealed that it is a case of uxoricide and consequently final report has been filed against the accused under Sections 302, 498A and 201 IPC.

3. The essence of the accusation is that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased and torture her physically as also mentally doubting her chastity, and that at about 11 p.m. on 28.02.2009, the accused struck on the head of the deceased with the handle of a spade and thereafter hanged her, after tying a knot around her neck with a saree in the iron hook on the roof of their house. It is also the accusation that the accused thereafter cut the saree used for hanging the deceased into a few pieces, concealed the same so as to destroy evidence and caused the body to lie on the floor on a mat.

4. On the accused pleading not guilty of the charges framed against him by the Court of Session on committal of the case for trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PWs 1 to 13 and proved through them 24 documents as Exts.P1 to P24. MOs 1 to 16 are the material objects in the case. Ext.D1 is the portion of the statement given by the witness who gave evidence as PW13.

5. After the prosecution tendered its evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code, he denied the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. In addition, he also stated that his wife committed suicide.

6. The Court of Session, on an appraisal of the materials on record, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. Default sentences were also imposed on the accused. The accused is aggrieved by the said decision of the Court of Session and hence this appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the accused as also the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

8. The essence of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused was that it is a case of suicide and not homicide. We are not referring to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused here as we propose to deal with the same elaborately in the latter part of this judgment. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor asserted, placing reliance on the materials on record, that it is a case of homicide and not a suicide at all.

9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the questions that arise for consideration are (1) whether it is a case of homicide and (2) if so, whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are sustainable in law.

10. Questions 1 and 2: PW6 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination of the body of